OT More Right-Wing Social Security Lies: Will Brit Hume Ever Apologize For Distorting FDR's Own Words?

Read this really close, Mike Hunt. If you're going to argue, its best
to begin with the facts, and WSJ/Brit Hume don't work well.

<CITE:http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010>

Distorting FDR: Bennett and Hume claimed father of Social Security
system wanted privatization

In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize
Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan
administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor
and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts. In
fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to
supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed
replacing those benefits with private accounts.

On the February 3 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, Bennett
declared: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the guy who established Social
Security, said that it would be good to have it replaced by private
investment over time. Private investment would be the way to really
carry this thing through."

Earlier that evening, on FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume
provided the alleged historical basis for Bennett's claim:

HUME: In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said
that any Social Security plans should include, quote, "Voluntary
contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the
annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding,
quote, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity
plans."

But Roosevelt was not advocating that the present system of guaranteed
Social Security benefits "ought to ultimately be supplanted by
self-supporting annuity plans." Rather, he was proposing that both
mandatory contributions and voluntary annuities would eventually
eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to
provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935
to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system.

Roosevelt outlined the three major tenets he envisioned for Social
Security in the January 17, 1935, speech that Hume quoted. As the
Social Security Administration (SSA) has noted, these tenets are: 1)
"non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to
build up their own insurance"; 2) "compulsory contributory annuities
which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now
young and for future generations"; and 3) "voluntary contributory
annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual
amounts received in old age."

The second element, "compulsory contributory annuities," is the
backbone of Social Security's current system of guaranteed retirement
benefits, which are funded with payroll taxes that employees pay
throughout their working years. But it was the first element, a
retirement benefit fund for those who would never pay into the new
system due to advanced age, that Roosevelt said would eventually be
"supplanted" -- or made unnecessary -- by both voluntary annuities and
compulsory contributions like those in the current system.

In his January 17, 1935, speech, he noted: "It is proposed that the
Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the
[non-contributory] old-age pension plan [the other half coming from the
states], which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting
annuity plans." As the SSA noted, "It was the President's view ... 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."

During 1935 congressional hearings on Roosevelt's Social Security bill,
Edwin Witte, executive director of the Committee on Economic Security
(CES), clearly stated that the voluntary accounts were intended as a
"separate undertaking" meant to "supplement" the compulsory system, not
replace it: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a
supplement to the compulsory plan."


I'LL REPEAT THAT FOR YOU, THE REAL DEAL:

During 1935 congressional hearings on Roosevelt's Social Security bill,
Edwin Witte, executive director of the Committee on Economic Security
(CES), clearly stated that the voluntary accounts were intended as a
"separate undertaking" meant to "supplement" the compulsory system, not
replace it: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a
supplement to the compulsory plan."

REPEAT, ONE MORE TIME, DITTO-HEADS:

During 1935 congressional hearings on Roosevelt's Social Security bill,
Edwin Witte, executive director of the Committee on Economic Security
(CES), clearly stated that the voluntary accounts were intended as a
"separate undertaking" meant to "supplement" the compulsory system, not
replace it: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a
supplement to the compulsory plan."

.... continue reading ...

Further, voluntary annuities would be "similar to those issued by
commercial insurance companies" -- as Witte explained -- but they would
differ from private accounts in that their funds would be deposited
into and paid out of the Social Security trust fund, and they would
provide a government-guaranteed benefit like mandatory contributions.
Prominent contemporary Democrats support Roosevelt's idea of
supplemental government-sponsored investment accounts that are paid for
by non-Social Security funds, although unlike Roosevelt's plan, these
accounts would not be linked to the trust fund.*

Former Social Security associate commissioner James Roosevelt Jr.,
Roosevelt's grandson, noted in a January 31 Boston Globe op-ed piece:
"The implication that FDR would support privatization of America's
greatest national program is an attempt to deceive the American people
and an outrage."

[snip footnote, irrelevant]
- A.S.

Once again you try to distort the Presidents position. Nether
has the President suggest replacing SS with private account. He
has stated many times that those currently on SS and those over
55 will not see any change. Younger workers that do not want to
opt into personal accounts can stay with the current system and
get the same benefits..

No matter what happens short of raising the income from FICA SS
payments will not be as great when the current system goes into
bankruptcy. The ONLY way for future retirees to get a better
return on the same amount of money, taken from them already, is
with optional personal accounts. Even those that do not op for a
personal account will gain as well, because they will be taxed
less to pay the interest on the government bonds in which all SS
funds are currently invested.

Don't let little richard and the other neo fascist on the evil
left trick you with typical half truths and deception. Remember
it was President Reagan who lowered your federal income tax
rates, who indexed SS payment, the personal tax exemption and the
standard deduction to the cost of living back in the eighties,
not the democrats yet democrats continue to make people believe
the republicans want to take away their SS. It was President
Bush that lower the marginal tax rate again, lowering everybody
taxes and taking millions completely off the tax rolls. It is
the democrat that want to let the tax cuts expire in 2006 and
raise YOUR taxes. President Bush wants the tax cuts made
permanent.

The only thing the democrat have done in fifty years is take your
money to buy the votes of the non producers. Does anyone believe
the democrats are for the working man today as they were in 1945
when a family in the upper middle class paid a 5% tax on an
average $15,000 income and only Dad worked to ern it? Today the
tax rate on an upper middle class family is 32% and both Mom AND
Dad work to pay it on their $150,000 income.


Little Richard wrote:[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to
> supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never
> proposed replacing those benefits with private accounts.[/color]

[email]SlimPickens@mailcity.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> Once again you try to distort the Presidents position. Nether
> has the President suggest replacing SS with private account. He
> has stated many times that those currently on SS and those over
> 55 will not see any change. Younger workers that do not want to
> opt into personal accounts can stay with the current system and
> get the same benefits..[/color]

Obviously you AND bush have no clue how SS works.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:44:44 -0400, [email]SlimPickens@mailcity.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>The only thing the democrat have done in fifty years is take your
>money to buy the votes of the non producers[/color]

Sooooo true!

Look at the present time...

No ideas (except 'Anything But Bush')


--

Scott in Florida

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:15:48 -0400, "Josh"
<nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
[color=blue]
>SlimPickens@mailcity.com wrote:[color=green]
>> Once again you try to distort the Presidents position. Nether
>> has the President suggest replacing SS with private account. He
>> has stated many times that those currently on SS and those over
>> 55 will not see any change. Younger workers that do not want to
>> opt into personal accounts can stay with the current system and
>> get the same benefits..[/color]
>
>Obviously you AND bush have no clue how SS works.
>[/color]

Obviously Mike and Bush and I understand how SS is going bankrupt....

You lilly livered liberals have a lot to say...but nothing to say....


--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:15:48 -0400, "Josh"
> <nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> [email]SlimPickens@mailcity.com[/email] wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Once again you try to distort the Presidents position. Nether
>>> has the President suggest replacing SS with private account. He
>>> has stated many times that those currently on SS and those over
>>> 55 will not see any change. Younger workers that do not want to
>>> opt into personal accounts can stay with the current system and
>>> get the same benefits..[/color]
>>
>> Obviously you AND bush have no clue how SS works.
>>[/color]
>
> Obviously Mike and Bush and I understand how SS is going bankrupt....
>
> You lilly livered liberals have a lot to say...but nothing to say....[/color]

Yes, you 3 understand, the rest of the world does not LOL.

<TOP POST>

If you are going to argue that the so called private accounts should be a
supplement to SS, then fine, let's have a discussion of how to supplement
SS. The problem is, the Dems -- lead by Howard Dean and backed up by Ted
Kennedy -- don't want to change any of the qualities of the SS plan we have
today. They prefer to bury their head up their ass and pretend that SS is in
fine shape, when the facts show that they have been saying for decades that
the plan is on a collision course with disaster and insolvency. They appear
to be against any reform today because they can't take credit for putting
forward the idea that reform is needed. If they can't take the credit, then
it must not be needed is the way it looks to me.

I, for one, agree jwith Bush that the plan needs to be changed because it is
headed for deep doo doo if we don't do something very soon. But, I am not in
lock step with Bush on what it takes to fix the problems. Personally, I
think that there should be a means test for recipients. People that have
done very well for themselves probably can do OK without SS benefits.
Frankly, we stop collecting SS taxes on income over $78,000 - or
thereabouts. If we collected SS taxes on higher incomes, then we could avoid
the means tests, but when there is a cap on the tax, it seems reasonable to
me that there could be a means test. But, Americans save very little. We
save something on the order of 7% of gross wages. Most of us save less. We
are taxed on the dollars that go into savings, then we are taxed again on
the earnings of the savings accounts. If the savings are investments, then
the corporations we invest in are taxed on the earnings and we are taxed on
the dividend, this amounts to double tax on the same dollar. We need a
system that will encourage people to save, or force them to save. SS can be
a forced savings plan if we tinker with the structure a little bit and
divert a portion of SS witholding into a prom of private account. If a
private account grows to the point that the annuity it pays out on
retirement exceeds the SS benefit, then why not scrap the benefit for the
particular retiree and give that benefit to a different class of SS
recipient. This is what Bush is talking about.

If you don't agree with Bush's plan then throw out a suggestion of what you
think the plan should look like. This is one of those times with it isn't
enough to complain that the Administration is full of crap, yoiu have to
come up with a plan that you think will accomplish the goal, then with the
plan you have and the plan the Administration has, we should be able to come
up with a plan that works. Looking at your post of what FDR really
envisioned, it appears to me that he never wanted SS to be the end-all of
retirement planning. I think Bush is merely recognizing that there is
pitiful little retirement planning that most of us do, and if SS is going to
take money from us each payday, then maybe it could do more work for us in a
privatized account instead of in the government's coffers. I know I'd rather
know that my money is growing for me than wasting time in the government's
cash drawer.

</TOP POST



"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119217316.429848.110790@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Read this really close, Mike Hunt. If you're going to argue, its best
> to begin with the facts, and WSJ/Brit Hume don't work well.
>
> <CITE:http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010>
>
> Distorting FDR: Bennett and Hume claimed father of Social Security
> system wanted privatization
>
> In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize
> Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan
> administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor
> and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano
> Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts. In
> fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to
> supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed
> replacing those benefits with private accounts.
>
> On the February 3 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, Bennett
> declared: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the guy who established Social
> Security, said that it would be good to have it replaced by private
> investment over time. Private investment would be the way to really
> carry this thing through."
>
> Earlier that evening, on FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume
> provided the alleged historical basis for Bennett's claim:
>
> HUME: In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said
> that any Social Security plans should include, quote, "Voluntary
> contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the
> annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding,
> quote, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity
> plans."
>
> But Roosevelt was not advocating that the present system of guaranteed
> Social Security benefits "ought to ultimately be supplanted by
> self-supporting annuity plans." Rather, he was proposing that both
> mandatory contributions and voluntary annuities would eventually
> eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to
> provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935
> to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system.
>
> Roosevelt outlined the three major tenets he envisioned for Social
> Security in the January 17, 1935, speech that Hume quoted. As the
> Social Security Administration (SSA) has noted, these tenets are: 1)
> "non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to
> build up their own insurance"; 2) "compulsory contributory annuities
> which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now
> young and for future generations"; and 3) "voluntary contributory
> annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual
> amounts received in old age."
>
> The second element, "compulsory contributory annuities," is the
> backbone of Social Security's current system of guaranteed retirement
> benefits, which are funded with payroll taxes that employees pay
> throughout their working years. But it was the first element, a
> retirement benefit fund for those who would never pay into the new
> system due to advanced age, that Roosevelt said would eventually be
> "supplanted" -- or made unnecessary -- by both voluntary annuities and
> compulsory contributions like those in the current system.
>
> In his January 17, 1935, speech, he noted: "It is proposed that the
> Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the
> [non-contributory] old-age pension plan [the other half coming from the
> states], which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting
> annuity plans." As the SSA noted, "It was the President's view ... 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."
>
> During 1935 congressional hearings on Roosevelt's Social Security bill,
> Edwin Witte, executive director of the Committee on Economic Security
> (CES), clearly stated that the voluntary accounts were intended as a
> "separate undertaking" meant to "supplement" the compulsory system, not
> replace it: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a
> supplement to the compulsory plan."
>
>
> I'LL REPEAT THAT FOR YOU, THE REAL DEAL:
>
> During 1935 congressional hearings on Roosevelt's Social Security bill,
> Edwin Witte, executive director of the Committee on Economic Security
> (CES), clearly stated that the voluntary accounts were intended as a
> "separate undertaking" meant to "supplement" the compulsory system, not
> replace it: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a
> supplement to the compulsory plan."
>
> REPEAT, ONE MORE TIME, DITTO-HEADS:
>
> During 1935 congressional hearings on Roosevelt's Social Security bill,
> Edwin Witte, executive director of the Committee on Economic Security
> (CES), clearly stated that the voluntary accounts were intended as a
> "separate undertaking" meant to "supplement" the compulsory system, not
> replace it: "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a
> supplement to the compulsory plan."
>
> ... continue reading ...
>
> Further, voluntary annuities would be "similar to those issued by
> commercial insurance companies" -- as Witte explained -- but they would
> differ from private accounts in that their funds would be deposited
> into and paid out of the Social Security trust fund, and they would
> provide a government-guaranteed benefit like mandatory contributions.
> Prominent contemporary Democrats support Roosevelt's idea of
> supplemental government-sponsored investment accounts that are paid for
> by non-Social Security funds, although unlike Roosevelt's plan, these
> accounts would not be linked to the trust fund.*
>
> Former Social Security associate commissioner James Roosevelt Jr.,
> Roosevelt's grandson, noted in a January 31 Boston Globe op-ed piece:
> "The implication that FDR would support privatization of America's
> greatest national program is an attempt to deceive the American people
> and an outrage."
>
> [snip footnote, irrelevant]
> - A.S.
>[/color]