| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Still No Word From Fox's Brit Hume | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 18 2005, 01:22 PM (497 Views) | |
| CalRed | Feb 18 2005, 05:35 PM Post #16 |
|
Member
|
Are we saying that "voluntary contributory annuities" are not private plans? We only have FDR's word as published for what he "meant." His Grandson certainly has no idea whether he meant a government plan. He used the term referring to private annuties. Brit Hume was correct in what he said. |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Feb 18 2005, 06:04 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Member
|
You posted Hume's fabrication. Not a quote of Roosevelt.. We do know what FDR meant. His statements are clear if taken in proper order. |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| CalRed | Feb 18 2005, 06:22 PM Post #18 |
|
Member
|
Actually I copied that from Chris's site. Got to go...It's crab leg night... |
|
Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 18 2005, 06:27 PM Post #19 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Gary, that's form an op-ed what agrees with you, they were quoting FDR's written statement to Congress in 1935. You're going to have to spell out the difference because I don't see it yet. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Feb 18 2005, 06:38 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Member
|
Chris this explains it completely ROOSEVELT: I think I can. And it's really quite an amazing distortion. What they did was that they took a very simple statement that my grandfather made, which said that Social Security, when it was enacted almost 70 years ago, ought to first of all have a part that took care of people who didn't have time to build up a Social Security account. And the government should fund that out of general revenues. Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security. And thirdly, those who wanted and who needed to, as many -- almost everybody -- did, to have a higher income and retirement, should have accounts where they could pay in voluntarily, in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefit. Buddy says: The Hume quote from Cal's post above.. Puts the thirdly before the firstly.. And creates a completely different meaning... |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Feb 18 2005, 06:42 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Member
|
First, Government pays half... Because many are to old to participate. Second , Employers and employees take over. (What we have today) Third, Employees take out pensions IN ADDITION TO GUARANTEED SS BENEFITS.. (What we have today if you take into consideration 401k’s and IRA’s.) |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Feb 18 2005, 06:46 PM Post #22 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Gary, uh, you are not quoting FDR but his grandson. What are his qualifications? And you are quoting Cal who quoted me who quoted some Air America blogger who quoted FDR's written statement to Congress in 1935. So what you are saying is the grandson knows better than the grandfather what he intended. Do you believe in reincarnation? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| wolfe59 | Feb 18 2005, 07:02 PM Post #23 |
|
Member
|
That's right we already have them, so lets get rid of SS. Its no longer needed. |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Feb 18 2005, 08:39 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Member
|
Wolf Fewer people today have any type of pension, including 401k’s and IRA’s, than just a few years ago. They are disappearing from the Work place.. Mutual funds have been a horrible investment in the past few years.. Dropping SS will not change that.. In fact it is even greater reason to insure that SS continues.. |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Feb 18 2005, 08:54 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Member
|
Agency History Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian's Office The Roosevelt Administration's Proposal for Voluntary Annuities The Administration's Proposals- When President Roosevelt submitted his legislative package to Congress on January 17, 1935, the Administration's proposals contained three provisions designed to provide retirement security for older Americans: 1. A System of Old Age Pensions- These were state-run welfare programs for the elderly. The Administration's proposal was for block grants to the states to help them fund their existing or any new old-age pension programs. Many states already had such programs in existence and there was considerable interest in securing federal assistance with these programs. In the terminology of the period, old-age "pensions" meant welfare benefits. 2. A System of Mandatory Old Age Annuities- This was the old-age insurance system that we now call Social Security (the term "Social Security" was not applied to the Administration's program until mid-way through the Congressional hearings). In the terminology of the time, this was referred to as "mandatory old-age annuities." 3. A System of Voluntary Old Age Annuities- The Administration also proposed a program of voluntary old-age annuities. These were to be insurance-type annuities, issued by the government, to supplement the benefits contemplated under the mandatory part of the program, or to provide a basic annuity to workers not covered under the mandatory program. The proposal called for the government to sell annuity certificates to workers. These certificates could then be cashed-in when a worker retired and used to purchase an increased annuity amount as a supplement to their mandatory annuity, or to purchase a basic annuity if the worker was not eligible under the mandatory system. Income from the sale of these certificates would go into the trust fund along with the payroll taxes collected under the mandatory program. The Administration's bill, introduced as H.R. 4120, contained only the sketchiest outline of the voluntary annuity provision as Title V of its bill. It provided: The Social Insurance Board was authorized to borrow such sums as were necessary to pay the annuity certificates; The annuities could not exceed $100 per month; The funds involved in this program would be deposited in the old-age trust fund and the payments would be made from this fund; The Social Insurance Board could set virtually all other rules and conditions involving the certificates. The voluntary old-age annuities was a proposal developed by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) and supported by President Roosevelt. During the Congressional hearings on the Administration's proposals, Edwin Witte, Executive Director of the CES, explained in more detail how the voluntary annuities would work and why the CES thought them necessary: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a supplement to the compulsory plan contemplates that the Government shall sell to individuals, on a cost basis, deferred life annuities similar to those issued by commercial insurance companies; that is, in consideration of premiums paid at specified ages, the Government would guarantee the purchasers a definite amount of income, starting at 65, for example, and continuing throughout the lifetime of the annuitant. The primary purpose of the plan is to offer persons not included within the compulsory system a systematic and safe method of providing for their old age. It could also be used by insured persons as a means of supplementing the old-age income provided under the compulsory plan. Without attempting to outline in detail the terms under which Government annuities should be sold, it is believed that a satisfactory and workable plan, based on the following principles, could be developed without great difficulty: 1. The plan should be self-supporting, and premiums and benefits should be kept in actuarial balance by any necessary revision of the rates which periodic examinations of the experience would indicate. 2. The terms of the plan should be kept as simple as practicable in the interest of economical administration and to minimize misunderstanding on the part of individuals utilizing these arrangements. This could be accomplished by limiting the types of annuity offered to two or three of the most important standard forms. 3. The plan should be designed primarily for the same economic groups as those covered by the compulsory system; hence, provision should be made for the acceptance of relatively small premiums (as little as $1 per month) and the maximum annuity payable to any individual should be limited to the actuarial equivalent of $50 per month. 4. The plan should be administered by the social insurance board along with the compulsory old-age-insurance system, but as a separate undertaking. 5. The social insurance board should study the feasibility of Government contribution toward the annuities of people now middle aged or older with income of $2,500 per year or less who come under this voluntary plan . . ." Congressional Consideration- It was the President's view, and that of the experts on his Committee on Economic Security (CES), that ultimately the welfare pensions funded by the states with federal contributions would become unnecessary as the two programs of annuities would gradually come to obviate any need for such welfare type programs. In his January 17th message to Congress, President Roosevelt summarized his view of these three proposals this way: "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." The proposal for voluntary annuities did not receive much attention during the hearings process. There were some objections raised on the grounds that this proposal would put the government in competition with the private insurance industry in the sale of annuities. The proposal did not survive the Committee process in the House, and was not included in the Ways & Means Committee Report on the bill. The Ways & Means Committee had 25 members: 18 Democrats and seven Republicans. All seven Republicans members opposed both annuity titles in the Administration's bill, supporting only the provision for old-age pensions, as they indicated in a minority statement to the Committee Report. At least six Democrat members expressed their intention to vote against the two annuity provisions, according to a contemporaneous account by Edwin Witte, who attended the executive sessions of the Committee. According to Witte, Congressman Vinson (D-KY) proposed dropping the voluntary annuity provision and this compromise persuaded wavering Democrat members to support the mandatory annuity provision in the bill. Witte reports the subsequent vote to drop the voluntary provision as passing unanimously, and the second vote on the mandatory annuity program as passing by "three or four votes," with one member (Lamneck, D-OH) absent. (Lamneck was opposed to the Administration's bill and would have been expected to vote against both provisions as well as final passage.) The bill as received from the House thus contained no provision for voluntary annuities. During the executive sessions on the bill in the Finance Committee, Representative David J. Lewis (D-MD) appeared as a witness in support of the voluntary annuity plan, trying to persuade the Finance Committee to restore the provision deleted by his own Committee in the House. He told the Finance Committee that 22,000,000 workers would not be covered under the mandatory annuity plan and he urged adoption of the Administration's proposal for voluntary annuities to help these uncovered workers. Senator Lonergan (D-CT) spoke in opposition to the voluntary annuity provision. Senator Edward Costigan (D-CO) moved to include the provision and it passed in Committee on a vote of 7-5 (9 members being absent). Witte reports that the Committee Chairman, Pat Harrison (D-MS), gave Senator Lonergan assurances that he could move to delete the provision on the floor and that the Chairman would not oppose such a motion. Consequently, a more-detailed version of the voluntary provision was included as Title XI of the Finance Committee Report. The provision as proposed by the Finance Committee was: The Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to issue United States Annuity Bonds; The bonds could be purchased by the public in cash, in exchange for Savings Bonds, or by installment payments; The bonds were to be redeemable for an annuity in installments, under varying terms; The bonds were to return no more than a 3% investment yield; The bonds were to be tax-exempt, but the annuity payments were not; The bonds were not transferable or assignable "in law or in equity;" The income from the sale of the annuities were public-debt receipts, and the payments were to come from the Treasury as public-debt redemptions, using any money "not otherwise appropriated;" The sale of the annuities was to be through the Post Office Department. During the final day of Senate floor debate on the bill, Senator Augustine Lonergan (D-CT) introduced an amendment to delete Title XI from the bill. Following a brief debate, the Senate voted by voice vote to delete the provision from its bill. Thus, the provision was not in either version of the legislation as finally passed, and was not an issue in the Conference Committee. There is little indication that the Administration considered this provision a priority and no record of any extensive efforts on the part of the Administration to save it. |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Feb 18 2005, 10:08 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Member
|
Research Note #15: The Roosevelt Administration's Proposal for Voluntary Annuities http://www.ssa.gov/history/voluntaryannuities.html |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Feb 18 2005, 10:44 PM Post #27 |
|
Member
|
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-224.html SSI Does Not Truly Differentiate between Those Who Can Work and Those Who Cannot Disability has long been viewed with suspicion and skepticism. Officials in England, as far back as the 15th century, expressed concern that street beggars might be duping the public by pretending to be crippled or blind; manufacturing fake body sores; inflicting lacerations on themselves; or feigning epileptic seizures, dropsy, and leprosy.(69) Fraud is a systemic problem with any public disability program no matter how well constituted. The 1938 Advisory Council on Social Security stopped short of recommending a disability program, warning that "disability insurance would introduce many administrative problems of great difficulty, and . . . would necessitate intensive and sustained local investigation to prevent abuse."(70) Proponents of socialized disability programs found a way to overcome that skepticism. According to the 1948 Advisory Council, objective medical testing would sweep away all administrative difficulties and stand "as a safeguard against unjustified claims."(71) The medical model enabled proponents to sell the DI program in 1956 as well as the SSI program in 1972. A supposedly workable definition of "disability" had been found, and the problem of making disability programs politically acceptable was thereby solved through "objective" medical tests.(72) There is, however, no reliable way to separate the deserving from the undeserving, or to differentiate between those who can produce income and those who cannot. In the hearings on the 1956 legislation, one doctor asked, "Is the delivery boy who loses both legs totally and permanently disabled? Or is the certifying doctor supposed to point out that he can still run a drill press and probably make more money?"(73) SSI and DI use medical impairment as a substitute for disability, not because impairment is necessarily disabling but because impairment is supposed to be "objectively" determinable and therefore of unquestionable validity. The intellectual foundations of SSI have pretensions to scientific precision where no such precision exists. There is no necessary connection between medical impairment and inability to work. Examples abound of people with medical impairments who produce income and succeed in the workplace. Jobs for blind persons are commonplace, and so are jobs for those who are deaf (just ask the National Center for Deaf Entrepreneurs).(74) Many addicts and alcoholics hold jobs.(75) Lawyers in wheelchairs or with special hearing equipment or guide dogs are everyday sights in courthouses. Aided by technology, a quadriplegic who can use only his voice started a computer services company in Illinois, which generated a million dollars in revenue in 1993.(76) What, then, is a disability? Even if medical testing could determine disability, subjective judgments would still affect the process. Studies show a lack of uniformity in the way doctors interpret x-rays. Many conditions are diagnosed on the basis of a minimum number of listed characteristics or of conventions about the meaning of numerical values of medical tests. Still other diagnoses rely on patients' cooperation, such as when they are asked to "inhale and exhale with maximum effort."(77) Mental health diagnoses are subjective as well and are established on the basis of a minimum number of listed characteristics.(78) In sum, the determination of disability often hinges on a subjective judgment.(79) SSA officials conceded this in 1994: "Presently, there are no generally accepted measurement criteria for determining an individual's ability to function in relation to work-related activities."(80) That is tantamount to admitting that the emperor has no clothes.(81) The truth--that there is no reliable way to separate the deserving from the undeserving--was lost in the passage of disability programs in this country, but the truth can no longer be denied. Currently, SSI uses a definition of disability that is fluid and expands under pressure. Predictable and relentless expansion of the eligibility criteria allows more and more people to qualify as disabled as time goes on. SSA is pursuing a new methodology, which it does not claim will be objective or scientifically precise, that will measure disability only "as objectively as possible."(82) Thus, well-intentioned proposals to fix SSI by tightening the definition of disability seem doomed to fail.(83) SSA's new approach brings us no closer to being able to determine who can work and who cannot. |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Feb 18 2005, 10:57 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Member
|
TOM ARE YOU PRESENTING THAT POST AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN PROPAGANDA? Anyone who knows ANYTHING about SSI. KNOWS IT IS NOT PAID OUT OF FICA. It is paid out of the general tax fund. And is indeed welfare.. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SS DISABILITY. SSI is Supplemental Security Income.. It is not Social Security. And is not paid with SS funds. SSI |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| corky52 | Feb 18 2005, 10:57 PM Post #29 |
|
Member
|
Tom, What is worse having a few cheats or not helping those that really need help? The costs of finding the few hiding among the many may well out weight the value they steal. As maddening as it is there will always be those wh cheat the system, have to evaluate the cost catching them versus how much they really steal. |
![]() |
|
| BuddyIAm | Feb 18 2005, 11:04 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Member
|
Corky SSI is paid to low income elderly OR disabled.. There is no disability requirement for some who receive SSI. Because it is also a Supplemental security income for the aged.. It is welfare. Maximum assets are 3000 dollars in a burial fund. I believe.. You can get more information here.. SSI LET'S GET THIS BACK ON TOPIC... |
|
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity." "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |







8:21 AM Jul 11