General discussion

Even FDR thought we needed personal annuties

What happened, I wonder?

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Even FDR thought we needed personal annuties
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Even FDR thought we needed personal annuties
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
What happened is...

that the 30 years he mentioned (his January 17, 1935 speech) has been interpreted by his followers to have meant "forever".

He wasn't even talking of PARTIAL privitization, but total privitization.

- Collapse -
FDR comments on private annuity accounts and SSI
- Collapse -
FDR Supported Privatization
- Collapse -
Get the tumbleweed out of your eyes, Caktus.

Instapundit says he would have supported 401Ks, NOT the privatization of Social Security.

The rest of the site is Bushies talking to Bushies. Sort of a Shrubbery Fest.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Well instapundit is right!

'ought to ultimately be SUPPLANTED by self-supporting annuity plans.'"

Now that's a real blast from the past. Is it "ultimately" yet?

Thanks also for exposing the Dem's new leader in hypocrisy:

Another blast from the past: Harry Reid used to support Social Security reform: "Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector."

- Collapse -
Basically, that is what a

IRA and 401K is, why all the clammer now? Are we just playing Democrat and 'getting Bush'?

(Not directed at the members of SE.)

- Collapse -
I think the point is ...

... that initially the tax rate was like 2.5% and FDR always recognized that this should eventually be "reformed" to be supplemented by personal accounts. Instead, the tax rate is now 12.4% of which Bush wants to allow younger workers to use a measly 4% of for something FDR himself advocated and envisioned. Currently our IRA's and 401K's are in addition to SS, but have to be funded after a rather hefty cut is taken for our "insurance".

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Mixing apples and oranges, Dragon.

The SS program was supposed to be the reliable insurance (safety net, if you will) portion of a three-legged portfolio including SS, private pensions, and personal savings. Unfortunately, over the last 20-25 years as there's been more and more pressure against the income of all but the wealthiest Americans and more and more companies abandon private pension plans, the other two legs of that three-legged stool have become much less reliable -- and now Bush wants to turn the reliable safety net into another risky venture.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
fruit salad

FDR and the New Deal Democrats never said social security would (or should) be anything more than a safety net insurance program. It is only in the last 40 years that the liberal Tax and Spend Democrats have been representing social security as a national government-paid pension (with seeming sum-certain personal property rights based on the accumulated value of the individual taxes paid) in addition to vestigal safety net payments to some widows and orphans.

The sad fact is that it never was (and still isn't) a pension plan, though that's what the politicians have misled us into thinking it is. It is surprising, then, that Bush too is confused about what it is or isn't based on all the lies about it that have been foisted on the public for the past 40 years?


- Collapse -
How reliable is a system ...

... that takes 12% of your income and is slated to be insolvent in 40-50 years?

FDR wanted to supplement that 2-3% tax with private accounts. That's all the PSA's now would be if you think about it in FDR's terms.

Evie Happy

CNET Forums

Forum Info