Ever since FDR first proposed Social Security, he and his fellow Democrats have insisted that the program was a bunch of individual accounts into which Americans put money for their retirement. This has made any attempt to reform the listing program politically impossible, as millions of Americans were convinced that “their” personal Social Security account would be threatened.
Here’s the thing: it was never true.
Now, of all people, Tim Kaine, in an attempt to criticize Republicans, explodes the seventy-plus-year lie (Falls Church News Press):
The idea of taking money from one generation to give it to another is fundamentally what Republicans don’t like.
Actually, that is fundamentally what the Democrats have insisted – for decades – is not Social Security. Kaine has just admitted that his party has been lying on this issue for over three quarters of a century.
Next step is admitting that the program is completely unsustainable in the 21st Century. With any luck, the Democrats will admit to that before 2089.
Cross-posted to Bearing Drift
The notion that SS will be insolvent is as absurb as most other right-wing schemes. Going back to the Greenspan Commission of the early 80s, there have been such scares. There are so many ‘fixes’ that this Blog could not hold all of the analyses!!! A simple change in the income taxes for SS could provide a massive injection of funds to keep SS solvent. In addition, a few pennies addition would provide needed liquidity. And a modification of payments – tie payment levels to income (a new ‘Buffett Rule’) would address the $ needs…………..and these changes will come when they are needed and not now – as the scare mongers of today would have it!!!!
Can you please cite examples of Democratic officials making this claim: that Social Security is based on individually owned accounts embedded in the system?
FDR repeatedly referred to Social Security “annuities.”
every published report (except here) indicate that the SS funds are fully solvent……………just go on a google trip and see for yourselves (but please do not waste anyone’s time on studies by proven wackos!!!
That’s it? All you got is “FDR repeatedly referred to Social Security ‘annuities’?” Nothing from JFK, LBJ, Clinton, or the mad Socialist Obama?
Your post should be titled “Tim Kaine admits FDR has been lying about Social Security all along.” Or something.
FDR never used the term “annuities” to describe the Social Security program he implemented. He did say that he hoped “voluntary contributory annuities” added to the Social Security plan would “increase the annual amounts received in old age.” This is a suggestion that those who could afford to should supplement their SS benefits with a 401(k) style annuity, not an description of Social Security as a “bunch of individual accounts.”
You make a very misleading claim here: that Democrats falsely describe Social Security as a “bunch of individual accounts into which Americans put money for their retirement,” Further, you imply that they do this in an effort to intentionally mislead the public in order to protect the program. If you can back this up, I’d love to hear it. If you cannot the question begs: who’s the liar here?”
FDR specifically referred to the “annuities” as “compulsory,” and Democrats ever since have attacked any attempt to reform SS with the charge that Republicans were attacking “your Social Security.” They promulgated the myth for years, up to an including Al Gore’s “lockbox” nonsense.
The term “annuity” also refers in a general sense to “A fixed sum of money paid to someone each year, typically for the rest of their life” without respect to the source of the funds. So it’s not clear why this is an example of a Democrat claiming “that the program was a bunch of individual accounts into which Americans put money for their retirement.”
And seriously, your example of a Democrat lying about Social Security is a quote from FDR’s speech proposing the legislation? Something from the speech he gave when he signed it might be better.
Anyway, while FDR did indeed request legislation providing for “Old-age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities,” there’s no real good reason to think he wanted an individual account system. And asking for a program isn’t the same as describing an existing one falsely to protect the program.
Nor does pointing out that Republicans want to change the agreement by referring to “your Social Security” necessarily imply a claim that these are individual accounts. Even if Social Security is not a system of individual accounts, it’s still “mine” in some sense, at least in the sense I have a claim that everyone agrees is valid. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that politicians will use this language, whether or not they mean “individual accounts into which Americans put money for their retirement.”
Still would love to see a specific example. Please.
[...] Tim Kaine admits the Democrats have been lying about Social Security all along (rightwingliberal.wordpress.com) [...]