Social Security was part of FDR's New Deal plan. FDR was a democrat and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. It was not a bi-partisan plan. And to be nitpicky, you will never find any politician construct a piece of legislation with those specific words. You know better than that. Just like you will never see the words "screw over the poor people" and such in legislation.
It has survived seven decades of bi-partisan executives and Congress. Teddy Roosevelt (a republican) was the first US president to propose something that would be recognized as a social security insurance program. When FDR's administration presented it it was approved with an overwhelming number of votes in both houses. But you still haven't explained how Social Security is "trying to get as many people dependant on the federal government as they can". It's only to care for the elderly and the disabled and it always has been. So . . . you just make up policies and place it into their mouths?
I stand by what I said. The first president Bush governed through a pretty good economy until his last year in office. And Reagan was a great president - one of the the top 5.
sorry i did not get the chance to continue last night... No i do not just put words into their mouths. You are arguing the letter of the legislation and i am arguing the spirit of it. There will never be a law or any legislation that states that policy, i agree. All you have to do is look at the outcome of these policies and you can see that this is in fact what happens. Social Security completely falls under this discussion. Under social security, the government forcibly takes money from the working public and states we will give this back to you when you are old. This very act is forcing the populace to become dependent on the government.
Of course no Democrat would say they are trying to get as many people dependent on the federal government as they can. They are not stupid. But they get their powerbase from those who are dependant on the federal government. Those who are dependant on the federal government tend to vote heavily Democratic. You don't think the Democrats asre aware of that? That's why every time they come up with a "solution" to a problem the end result is to get more people dependant on the government. I will agree that part of this is because Democrats have no faith in local or state government (or individuals for that matter) to solve their own problems. In their eyes only the federal government is capable of solving problems. Social Security is a sham. The return on SS investments is ridiculous - less than 3%. I would hate to be someone who has to rely on it for my security. Of course we have to protect the benefits for those who are currently on it, but anyone entering the work force now or who have entered the work force in the last few years would be a fool to rely on Social Security. They will be much better off establishing their own private retirement account. The state of Louisiana got off Social Security years ago, and state employees - including myself - have benefited greatly from that. If I had to rely on Social Security benefits right now, I would still be working instead of retired. The Social Security System was never really designed to care for people for any great length of time. At the time it was passed the retirement age was just below the life expectancy of Americans. So those who voted for it expected that few people would live long enough to receive benefits, and those who did would receive them for very long. It was basically a means of putting more money in the federal coffers for congressmen and senators to raid - which they have done with gusto ever since. That is why there is no money now in the Social Security account - just a bunch of IOUs. The current SS system has become a grab-bag of unrelated entitlements; something it was never designed to be. But dispite this, when President Bush recommended Americans now entering the workforce be given the option of using 6% of their SS investments to establish their own personal accounts, Democratic congressmen and senators, along with some misguided Republicans, created a huge misinformation campaign that killed the bill. Bush's plan would not have affected anyone currently on SS, involved only a small amount of SS investments and was voluntary. But the opponents of the plan depicted it as not voluntary and a threat to all those currently on SS. Shame on them.
And I stand by what I said, I think Bush I did a decent job in office. Also, Reagan is not in my top 5, he did alot of questionable things, he ran the economy into the ground with all of his defense spending and alot of his economic policies help the already rich. In the 80s poverty was at one of its highest percentages in this country. In 1983 poverty was at 15.3 % of all people in this country, the only other time it was about 15% was 1993. Reagan might have been great for you, but he damn sure wasnt great for all people. His 8 years in office was a time of inflation and stagnation for the economy. Also, his tax cuts and defense spending caused large budget deficits, as well as the Savings and Loans scandale and the 87 crash of the market. The national debt went from 700 mill to 3 trillion because of this. Not to say he didnt do some good things for the economy but more people suffered than not.
Reagan build-up of the U.S. Military was a major factor in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Goborchev admitted that when they saw the advancements the U.S. was making they knew they could not keep up. This led to the reforms that led to the destruction of the Soviet Union. As far as the economy is concerned, when Reagan took office inflation was in double digits. His efforts led to inflation declining to where it was 4%. The people who benefited the most from this were the poor. It was not his tax cuts that led to the deficits; it was spending by Congress. Tax cuts put more money into the pockets of Americans - not just wealthy Americans - most Americans. Reagan was not responsible for poverty.
That's not how I remember the Reagan years. His time in office was not characterized by inflation and stagnation. Inflation was high going back to the end of the VN war in 72. If was bad under Nixon, worse under Ford, and worse still under Carter. That's the hand Reagan was dealt. His Fed chairman was Paul Volker, a hero of mine. Volker had to kill inflation because it was killing the savings of all americans. He raised interest rates till business could not expand, they laid off workers, he caused a real bad recession in 81-82, and it worked. He broke the back of inflation for the next 20 years. The US shuttered its steel industry in the north, and the economy had to transform itself. We climbed out of the recession which bottomed in 82. This ushered in good economic growth with low inflation leading to the stock market bubble in 1987, which crashed in Oct. Some of that was technical, as it was the first crash with computer trading in effect, and circuit breakers were added to protect the market from the computers, ending computer trading if the market is down 10% in one day. I agree the increase in defense spending was not a good idea. Russia was much weaker than some thought, and we did not need the defense build up. Paul Wolfowitz (yes, the neocon in the Bush II admin) was a part of CIA Team B that produced an alternative view from the regular CIA, indicating that Russia was stronger than standard CIA reports indicated, and that was used to justify the defense spending increase. When Russia collapsed on its on in 1989 (the US defense buildup had nothing to do with it, they could not supply bread and meat to their people in grocery stores), people saw that the Team B report was the incorrect one (funny how the Military Industrial Complex gets those lying reports they need to justify spending more on planes, ships and tanks). Reagan did some good and some bad, but more good in my book. I voted for him twice. Breaking the back of inflation was a HUGE accomplishment where 3 previous presidents had all failed. It took some stones to induce and endure a deep recession, but it ultimately was for the overall good of the country. Sometimes you have to take your medicine, and that was a time. Now is another time, but it seems nobody in govt. has stones anymore and they are just looking for a bailout. Difference is this housing bubble combined with terrible subprime lending practices and artificially low (let's get Bush re-elected) interest rates (when there was no recession in 2003-2004) have created a pretty big problem, and we may have broken Humpty Dumpty. We'll see, but it's not looking good so far. Federal Reserve committed to a $200 Billion collateral swap with some big banks, and after a one day 400 pt. Dow rally, back down, saying its still not enough!
Here are some more facts about Social Security you may not know. Check them out. It does not matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Facts are facts! When Franklin Roosevelt promoted the idea of Social Security in 1935 he promised several things. 1) That participation in the program would be voluntary 2) That the willing participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual income into the program 3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income tax each year 4) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would go into an independent trust fund rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and not any other government program, and 5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since then those citizens who have paid into Social Security for many years and have retired are now receiving a monthly Social Security check each month - and finding that they are being taxed on 85% of the of the money they paid to the federal government to "put away". Here are some more facts: Q: Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically-controlled House and Senate. Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security? A: The Democratic Party Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the tie-breaking and deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President. Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? A: That's right. Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants move into this country and at age 65 they begin receiving Social Security benefits without ever having paid a dime into it. Thanks to the Democratic Party. Then the Democrats turn around, after violating the original contract, and tell the nation that President Bush and the Republicans are trying to take Social Security away from the elderly and disabled. And the worse part of this is that the uninformed citizenry believed it. I will let you judge: who has been the greater threat to the Social Security System.
Gorbochev himself admitted that the defense spending under Reagan helped push the Soviet Union into reform. The Soviet may have been on the decline, but the defense spending was the final straw.
