Social Security Act Question

I don't know if this was addressed elsewhere or not, but I just heard from a caller on the Stephanie Miller show (Gawd, I love her) that FDR thought that Social Security could change into an annuity type program after the Stock Market had stablized. They are using this to say that personal or private accounts are what he wanted. Many here are more literate on this than I (I am ashamed to say) so has anyone else heard this.

conceived.
Why would they move back to Stocks and bonds?
I would have to see actual non-disputable documentation to believe that.

A few for the team!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/psources/ps_socsecspeech.html
http://www.agonist.org/story/2005/1/6/212133/2309
http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrbill.html

Try the above. First one is original source material.

and it is great. FDR felt that individuals should start their own retiement accounts if they could and that the government should help us start these. (IRA's, 401's, ect)

Soc Sec should be a compulsory government run program that is conservatively managed.

FDR's original plan wasn't what we have today. Does it matter though what FDR's original plan was? Even if his plan involved private accounts, it wouldn't affect what's going on today, just becuase FDR may have mentioned it as a possiblity. He mentioned lots of possiblities.

By the same logic you could say something as obtuse as 'The founders of this country didn't want blacks or women to vote because it wasn't originally in the constitution' This is probably true. Many of them didn't want blacks or women to vote. They wanted only white landowners (usually slaveowners too) to vote.

But times change. People change. We learn new things. It doesn't matter what the founders wanted. It matters what WE want. That's really the only thing they wanted that is valid. The ability to make new laws, override old ones, and even change the constitution. Sort of like the message from the founders is "Here's what we want, but feel free to change it."

The problem with conservative ideology is that it's regressive in every sense of the word. They struggle against change, unless that change is reversion. They hold the constitution up high, but will fight for laws to force us to go back to the ways of the founding fathers.

This is why a conservative might bring up something FDR or LBJ said to some reporter as an aside. In their thinking we have to do what these dead presidents wanted to do. That's the problem though. We're 'PROGRESSIVES'. I'm not avoiding the liberal label. We're liberals! No I say progressives here because we 'progress' we see a situation and try and make it better, regardless of what someone else said 75 years ago.

years ago - and as I recall Myers (1947 to 1970 chief Actuary of SS and one of the 3 actuaries in 1934 that designed the system) statements, the FDR point was to invest the surplus payroll tax in stocks, a concept the GOP shot down with cries of "Socialism by the back door" - thus leading to the Social Security Trust Fund investing in Gov Bonds (which are promises to raise taxes later on the rich) - which in turn led to the program under Myers using a 6 months of benefits should be size of trust concept - and no more/larger a Trust Fund - for 50 years - which in turn led to frequent benefit increases so as to make system "pay-as-you-go" and not a source of funds to use to build the National Debt.

FDR had no real intention of setting up a funded defined contribution plan ala Bush - although FDR did also say that "all options are on the table".

like that. Then let's get rid of the FDIC. How far back should we go? The bushies want to go back to 1776 it seems