On August 14, 1935, President FD Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act

[Cigar]

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/image.jpg

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, bringing the modern welfare state to the American people and providing the nation’s poor long-desired old age insurance.

Social Security proved immediately popular, even if AFL leaders grumbled. Despite the fact that union members loved Social Security, it was only the emergence of the CIO and the success the rival federation had in wrapping itself in progressive New Deal policy that moved AFL leaders to accept that Social Security might not destroy voluntarism. By 1938, the AFL joined the CIO in promoting expanded benefits. Republicans tried to make repealing it an issue in the 1936 elections. That didn’t work out so well for them. The plan was not implemented until the Supreme Court decided its constitutionality in Helvering v. Davis in 1937. Social Security meant something very real for the nation’s elderly. For instance, Roy Acuff had a hit off of his song about Social Security, “Old Age Pension Check:”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuAJAztq-4A&feature=player_embedded

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/08/this-day-in-labor-history-august-14-1935


:laugh:

[Chris]

Ponzi scheme that's bound to fail.


...A “Ponzi scheme” (the term made famous by Charles Ponzi in the early 1920s), like Bernie Madoff’s recent scheme, and like any “pyramid” scheme or “chain letter,” is an operation that pays alleged “investment returns” to clients from the clients’ own paid-in funds and with payments by subsequent clients, rather than from investments in productive assets or securities. The scheme entices new entrants by false promises of returns that are unrealistically high, ever-rising, or even abnormally-stable, all of which require ever-increasing inflows and hordes of additional dupes, to keep all the fakery going. Unless the scheme keeps growing and spreading, in time it must collapse, as the outflows swamp inflows; the game of “musical chairs” halts when claims exceed cash (insolvency). Such schemes are rare and tend not to last long or grow large in a free market, since they aren’t mandatory, they ensnare increasingly suspicious clients, they attract legitimate rivals eager to expose them, and they invite publicity-hungry district attorneys to prosecute them.

By the way, it’s irrelevant whether a Ponzi perpetrator sets out deliberately to inflict his scheme or instead only ends up with one after many years of evading his bad results and “cooking the books” to hide them. Either way, it’s still fraud. Likewise, by now it matters not whether FDRs’ New Dealers “intended” Social Security to be fraudulent starting in 1935; the fact remains: it has long since become a fraud. Today only fools or frauds dare deny it. Private-sector Ponzi schemes have built-in sensors, enemies, and anti-fraud laws to prevent and terminate them, while Social Security has the opposite: built-in perpetuators, coercion, muzzled and shrinking rivals, a growing pool of serfs, millions of admiring heralds, and a superficial air of legality....

@ Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme (http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social-security-is-much-worse-than-a-ponzi-scheme/)

[Cigar]

Ponzi scheme that's bound to fail.



@ Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme (http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social-security-is-much-worse-than-a-ponzi-scheme/)

Right after the $6.00 per gallon predictions

[patrickt]

Kudos to our first socialist President, dear friend of Uncle Joe Stalin, who gave us the most regressive tax on working people in the country.

[Mainecoons]

What's really funny is that Cigar is going to pay a whole lot of money into this failing Ponzi scheme, we geezers are going to get the money and he is going to be a bag holder.

Now that is poetic justice!

:rofl:

[nic34]

Right after the $6.00 per gallon predictions

SS is "failing" too I guess......

Except it has kept the elderly and disabled out of poverty for 78 years despite all the conservative attempts to dismantle it.

[BB-35]

SS is "failing" too I guess......

Except it has kept the elderly and disabled out of poverty for 78 years despite all the conservative attempts to dismantle it.

:rollseyes: unbelievable the ignorance of libs,..

[Chris]

SS is "failing" too I guess......

Except it has kept the elderly and disabled out of poverty for 78 years despite all the conservative attempts to dismantle it.



Even its administrators say it's failing, nic:


In last year's Trustees Report, the Social Security Administration warned that the program's trust fund was likely to run out of money in 2036, leading to deep cuts in benefits. If that weren't bad enough for anyone expecting to be alive then, a more recent projection from the Congressional Budget Office paints a much worse picture.

@ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/14/social-security-is-failing-even-faster-than-we-thought/

[nic34]

Republican claims that Social Security is going broke were dealt a blow by the latest Social Security trustees report, which found that the program will be able to pay every benefit until 2033.

The report echoed the same tone as last year. Social Security is fine for the next twenty years. The report also contained good news for Medicare, as it is now projected to be solvent until 2026. In a statement, Sen. Bernie Sanders stressed that these findings confirmed what the reality based political world already knew. Sen. Sanders said, “The report from the Social Security trustees confirms what many of us have known, that Social Security is not ‘going broke,’ that it can pay every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 20 years and that after 2033 there is enough in reserve to pay three-quarters of future benefits.”

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2013/index.html


The 2013 OASDI Trustees Report

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/05/31/gop-talking-point-dies-report-reveals-social-security-broke.html

[Chris]

Uh, nic, I didn't cite Reps, I cited the Trustees Report of the Social Security Administration.

[nic34]

So did I. You didn't check the link.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2013/tr2013.pdf

[Kalkin]

If social security was so popular, it would be voluntary.

[jillian]

If social security was so popular, it would be voluntary.

that's absurd.

[Mainecoons]

From the link:


The Trustees project that the asset reserves of the OASI Trust Fund and ofthe combined OASI and DI Trust Funds will be adequate over the next 10
years under the intermediate assumptions. However, the projected reserves
of the DI Trust Fund decline steadily from 85 percent of annual cost at the
beginning of 2013 until the trust fund reserves are depleted in 2016. At the
time reserves are depleted, continuing income to the DI Trust Fund would be
sufficient to pay 80 percent of scheduled DI benefits. The DI Trust Fund
does not satisfy the short-range test of financial adequacy.


In 2012, Social Security’s cost continued to exceed the program’s tax income
and also continued to exceed its non-interest income, a trend that the Trustees project to continue throughout the short-range period and beyond. The
2012 deficit of tax income relative to cost was $169 billion, and the projected
2013 deficit is $79 billion. The size of the 2012 deficit is largely due to a
temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax for 2011 and 2012.
The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury to the trust funds to “replicate to
the extent possible” revenues that would have occurred in the absence of the
payroll tax reduction. Including these general revenue reimbursements, the
2012 deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was $55 billion, and the
projected 2013 deficit is $75 billion


The Trustees project that annual OASDI cost will exceed non-interest
income throughout the long-range period under the intermediate assumptions. The dollar level of the combined trust fund reserves declines beginning
in 2021 until reserves are depleted in 2033. Considered separately, the DI
Trust Fund reserves become depleted in 2016 and the OASI Trust Fund
reserves become depleted in 2035. The projected reserve depletion years are
unchanged from last year’s report.

So, in other words, the government has to borrow to pay back SS until 2035 when they are both broke.

Yeah, that's great news there Nicky boy.

:rofl:

[Chris]

So did I. You didn't check the link.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2013/tr2013.pdf

Your one link is just a partisan attack. But even it says: "It would be foolish to suggest that Medicare and Social Security are fine. There is still a long term systemic problem looming. Some action will have to be taken in order to shore up the two beloved programs."

Your other link repeats what I posted:


...In 2012, Social Security’s cost continued to exceed the program’s tax income
and also continued to exceed its non-interest income, a trend that the Trustees
project to continue throughout the short-range period and beyond. The
2012 deficit of tax income relative to cost was $169 billion, and the projected
2013 deficit is $79 billion....

The Trustees project that the asset reserves of the OASI Trust Fund and of
the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds will be adequate over the next 10
years under the intermediate assumptions. However, the projected reserves
of the DI Trust Fund decline steadily from 85 percent of annual cost at the
beginning of 2013 until the trust fund reserves are depleted in 2016....

So what's you're point?

[Chris]

that's absurd.



Why, jill? Say something.

[Kalkin]

that's absurd.
What's absurd about letting free adults decide if they want to participate or not? If the program is that good, the vast majority will want to be involved.

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/S3e61.jpg

[nic34]

"When you're old and eating cat food, thank a conservative."

"GOP: Rich people paying rich people to tell working class people to blame poor people."

[jillian]

....

like rightwing anti-choice laws imposed by old men on women?