Obama *again* parrots Republican lie on Social Security

[MannyGoldstein]

I think that the biggest story to come out of Obama's press conference yesterday was not the predictable attack against "those on the Left". Rather, it was his repeating the flat-out Republican lie that Social Security was not originally intended for retirees. From the http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/07/president-obama-middle-class-tax-cuts-and-unemployment-insurance-agreement-a-good-de">WH transcript:

This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people.

A few weeks ago he repeated the same lie on The Daily Show:

Look, when Social Security was passed, it applied to widows and orphans. And it was a very restricted program.

I've heard key Obama appointee Republican Alan Simpson use this argument in the past as a basis for slashing Social Security: his theory is that Social Security's purpose has been perverted which is why it's going broke, and we need to return to what FDR intended.

Of course, the reality is that FDR started Social Security very specifically for retirees. According to the http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html">Social Security Administration:

The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.

FDR's statement at signing:

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

I suppose that it's possible that this is simply an utter misunderstanding on Obama's part rather than a purposeful lie: that's up to each of us to evaluate. I think Obama's a smart guy who gets briefed on subjects that are of importance to him.

Given Obama's continued parroting of this far-Right lie that's a basis for attacking Social Security, I can only assume that a coordinated attack is still in the works.

Stay tuned.

[sasha031]

1. yes, I heard that, it's very disturbing

there is no way I can defend what he is advocating. He scares me...

[dkf]

2. Back then the life expectancy was less than the age of retirement.

They didn't expect to provide for so many people for so many years.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. But updates in the 1980s adjusted for this

What's happening now is no different than what's been planned for. There will be no shortfall in SS as far out as has been calculated (75 years), unless US GDP grows at a much slower rate than it's grown over the past 30 years. The 27-year figure bandied about assumes very abnormally low GDP growth - just another game being played to scare people into handing the SS trust fund to the Predator Class,

[dkf]

Other question is what was FDR expecting from this program.

I don't think he thought such a considerable percent of the population would be relying on it.

[sasha031]

7. First, Social Security isn’t a direct cause of the federal budget deficit

. The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) currently runs a $2.5 trillion surplus, built up through earlier reforms that anticipated the looming retirement of the huge baby boomer generation.
Second, Social Security is not “in the red,” or “going bankrupt,” as pundits and politicians sometimes say. It’s true that Social Security took in less in payroll taxes this year than it paid out. That was due mainly to the deep recession, which has cut into payroll tax collections and pushed more unemployed workers to file for early benefits. But that’s a short-term problem that will reverse itself when the economy improves.
Finally, the SSTF really does exist, contrary to rumors that it exists only as an accounting trick or has been looted by the government. The simple fact is that the SSTF surplus funds don’t sit in some giant government piggy bank gathering dust; instead, the surplus is invested (safely, one assumes) in government-issued Treasury notes. Those notes are obligations of the federal government back to the SSTF, to be cashed in to finance all those looming boomer retirements.

more here
http://retirementrevised.com/money/how-deficit-reduction-plans-would-affect-social-security

[dkf]

20. Social security is invested in non negotiable bonds held in a vault in some basement.

Seriously. It gets paid interest not in cash but in more bonds.

Personally I think it was a stealth tax and the bonds are a scam. All you do to never use general funds is to cut benefits. But that is me.

[eridani]

23. That is pure unmitigated horseshit. Life expectancy FROM BIRTH was much lower--

--but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Social Security. Reducing infant mortality has no effect on further life expectancy of people who have reached retirement age. If you die before you are old enough to work, you will neither pay into or receive money from Social Security. You are irrelevant. Life expectancy starting from age 65 has only gone up by a couple of years since the 30s. Recently, it has actually DECREASED for low income women.

[ProSense]

3. Wrong

The President was right

<...>

What Obama is referring to are the Title V provisions -- essentially:

SECTION 501. For the purpose of enabling each State to extend and improve, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, services for promoting the health of mothers and children, especially in rural areas and in areas suffering from severe economic distress, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $3,800,000. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Chief of the Children s Bureau, State plans for such services.

In other words -- "widows and orphans" -- WERE the only people immediately helped by the bill because Title V was the only provision that allocated immediate assistance.... under the Title V grants.

<...>

[MannyGoldstein]

9. First off, where does it state 'widows and orphans'

or where is your evidence that these were the primary beneficiaries?

Even if your claim is valid, it's invalid: workers clearly qualified for Social Security benefits once the act was signed, they just weren't eligible for payments at that instant.

Such silly word parsing: I think it's quite clear what the President meant.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. Correct.

[Vinnie From Indy]

16. I think you are correct about FDR's intent.

Cheers!

[AtomicKitten]

11. Thank you! The point is it was incremental. nt

[suston96]

4. Roosevelt opened a door, a little at a time.

Of course he intended to cover all workers in their old age. And that's what has happened.

His words quoted above are precisely what he did.

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

I am saddened and angered that President Obama seems to have been led astray.

[bullwinkle428]

5. A helpful capsule history for some...

History
A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50%.<8>

Creation: The Social Security Act

President Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act, at approximately 3:30 pm EST on August 14, 1935.<9> Standing with Roosevelt are Rep. Robert Doughton (D-NC); unknown person in shadow; Sen. Robert Wagner (D-NY); Rep. John Dingell (D-MI); unknown man in bowtie; the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins; Sen. Pat Harrison (D-MS); and Rep. David Lewis (D-MD).The Social Security Act was drafted during Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under Frances Perkins, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate the protection of the elderly.<10>

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

K&R.

[JuniperLea]

8. You should look at actual history instead of Wikipedia...

Major Provisions Of The Act

The Social Security Act did not quite achieve all the aspirations its supporters had hoped by way of providing a "comprehensive package of protection" against the "hazards and vicissitudes of life." Certain features of that package, notably disability coverage and medical benefits, would have to await future developments. But it did provide a wide range of programs to meet the nation's needs. In addition to the program we know think of as Social Security, it included unemployment insurance, old-age assistance, aid to dependent children and grants to the states to provide various forms of medical care.

The two major provisions relating to the elderly were Title I- Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance, which supported state welfare programs for the aged, and Title II-Federal Old-Age Benefits. It was Title II that was the new social insurance program we now think of as Social Security. In the original Act benefits were to be paid only to the primary worker when he/she retired at age 65. Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions that the worker made during his/her working life. Taxes would first be collected in 1937 and monthly benefits would begin in 1942. (Under amendments passed in 1939, payments were advanced to 1940.)

The significance of the new social insurance program was that it sought to address the long-range problem of economic security for the aged through a contributory system in which the workers themselves contributed to their own future retirement benefit by making regular payments into a joint fund. It was thus distinct from the welfare benefits provided under Title I of the Act and from the various state "old-age pensions." As President Roosevelt conceived of the Act, Title I was to be a temporary "relief" program that would eventually disappear as more people were able to obtain retirement income through the contributory system. The new social insurance system was also a very moderate alternative to the radical calls to action that were so common in the America of the 1930s.

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

And check out the full text of the 1935 Social Security Act...

http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html

[MannyGoldstein]

13. That's actually what I used as a source

What's your point?

[JuniperLea]

15. You cherry picked...

Your information is woefully incomplete.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Indeed. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

25. What's incomplete about it?

What mitigation do claim WRT Obama's claims?

[jwirr]

12. Only widows and orphans? If I am not mistaken it also covered the

disabled because of FDR's own disability. If not when was that added? Eisenhower added farmers and a few others.

[doc03]

14. I had a DUer tell me a couple weeks ago if you have any kind

pension or savings that that income should be deducted dollar for dollar from your SS. So in other words if you work your ass off and save or get a pension through collective bargaining you should be ineligible for any SS and be doomed to a life of poverty and starvation.

[dflprincess]

17. Survivor Benefits (aka widows & orphans) were added in 1939

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/506/infocus/p15.htm

In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Committee on Economic Security (CES). The CES was assigned the task of studying the need for an economic security system to provide income for the elderly and disabled. Care for those unable to work was traditionally provided by family members or, in limited cases, by the government. Roosevelt recognized the need for a national system. In January 1935, the CES issued a report to President Roosevelt outlining a plan for a national program of economic security. This plan ultimately became the Social Security Act (SSA), which was passed by Congress on August 14, 1935.

The SSA created a social insurance program covering a variety of individuals. The law provided a monthly benefit to individuals age 65 and older and no longer working. The monthly benefit was paid to the primary worker when he retired; the amount received was based on the individual’s payroll tax contributions. The SSA also provided unemployment insurance, aid to dependent children, and grants to states for medical care. The Social Security Board was established and charged with implementing a system to enroll employees, report earnings, and collect payroll tax contributions. Under the initial SSA, monthly benefits were to begin in 1942; from 1937 until 1942, Social Security would pay out a single lump sum to anyone retiring. This “payback” sum was given to those paying into Social Security but not having sufficient contributions to vest in monthly benefits.

Changes to the 1935 Act

There have been several important amendments to the original 1935 Social Security Act. In 1939, Social Security was modified to add benefits to the spouse or minor children of a retired worker. It also added a survivor’s benefit, paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker. Thus, with the 1939 amendment, the idea of economic security became a family-based program rather than an individual-based one, and one that provided benefits for retirement, disability, premature death, and medical costs after retirement.

Up until Reagan "reformed" it - a child could collect survivor's benefits until age 22 as long as they stayed in school. I would not have gotten through college without Social Security to help with expenses.

[great white snark]

19. How is this a Republican lie?

Conservative blogs today are making the same argument you are...calling President Obama a liar.

[JuniperLea]

22. Yep...

Cherry picking, and lying... this should not be allowed on DU.

[CakeGrrl]

21. More disingenuity - "predictable attack of 'those on the Left'"

He was asked (baited) a question and he responded.

When will you stop playing the victim?

[bvar22]

24. Thats not the only Republican BIG LIE Obama has been parroting lately.

"The Tax Cuts are only temporary."

Bullshit.
I DARE anyone to show me HOW the political situation will "CHANGE" in two years to allow for axing the Tax Cuts for Millionaires. (This is in reality a TAX HIKE on the Middle Class who WILL be forced to make up the deficit.)
THIS was the LAST opportunity to return to a "Democratic" tax structure...and it was THROWN AWAY.
This is NOW the PERMANENT Status Quo.

Tax Cuts create JOBS....NONSENSE.
Too angry to elaborate, and NO elaboration should be necessary.
Where are ALL the Jobs? :shrug:

[otohara]

27. Double Dip Recession - FEAR

now they're using fear too!


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/12/08/summers-warns-of-double-dip-recession-without-tax-package/

[StarsInHerHair]

26. Obama has completely internalized Right Wing Worldview, obvious now

nt

[Dinger]

28. What Is His Problem Anyway?

Why the hell doesn't he just switch and get it over with?

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. He probably isn't planning on a re-election bid so no need in switching to his real party.

I bet he has a cushy high paying corporate job already lined up. Corporate Lobbyist,maybe? :evilgrin: He'd be highly successful at that. :puke:

[ProudDad]

29. K&R (n/t)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. How exactly is his "parroting" what is actually a NON-LIE

helping the far right attack Social Security? The context of his comments were that "change" is often (mostly) slow and incremental (and for us to be patient!) not that it's been perverted beyond what FDR originally intended as Simpson is apparently arguing. Anyway, why does it matter what Simpson thinks? If you have some comments of Obama's suggesting that he actually agrees with Simpson, then that would be more concerning to me. As it stands, it seems that the meaning of Obama's comments appear to have been taken out of context or stretched beyond their original meaning IMHO.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Obama agrees with his man Simpson that SS was not started for retirees

Which is utterly, totally, and completely wrong.

And this ain't quantum physics - it's simple stuff any high-school grad should know.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. O.k. So, even if he is wrong

Where is your evidence for him having malicious intent towards Social Security or a desire to advance Republican lies? I guess that's more of the question that I have about this OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Oh, plenty of evidence

He appointed Simpson and Bowles to lead the committee - they have both tried to slash Social Security in the past (for example, "Democrat" Bowles cut a deal with Newt Gingrich (!) under Clinton to cut it, but Congress refused:

http://politics.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich.html

And both have vowed to try again.

Simpson, in particular, is well-known for using his lie about the origins of Social Security to con people into believing that Social Security needs to go back to its roots. Why would Obama champion essentially the same lie? Coincidence?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. Still not getting the "ill intent towards Social Security" vibe

at least not from these particular comments but whatever. Maybe, I'm just dense. :shrug:

[inna]

35. good post, too late to rec unfortunately

will stay tuned, for sure.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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