Social Security started just with widows and orphans! That sell-out FDR!

[impik]

You people really need to pick up a history book. It'll do you a lot of good.

[boppers]

1. He was a corporatist. A sell out to big money.

He didn't fix everything, therefore, he is evil.

:sarcasm:

[Diane R]

2. Thank you for this excellent reminder. It give me hope, and helps me appreciate our Pres.

[Hannah Bell]

14. except it's false.

The original Act provided only retirement benefits, and only to the worker.

The 1939 Amendments made a fundamental change in the Social Security program. The Amendments added two new categories of benefits: payments to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker (so-called dependents benefits) and survivors benefits paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[elleng]

28. "FALSE?"

Isn't the point that changes have been made since originally enacted, improving it year by year, and the same is likely to happen with Health care?

[Hannah Bell]

33. The OP said SS started with widows & orphans. Completely false.

The OP said nothing about your point. Even more stupidly, the OP told everyone to go study history -- stupidly, since the OP doesn't even know the history he pretends to school everyone on.


Per your thought that this bill is just the start, & coverage will increase, as it did in the case of SS:

SS started with all covered workers paying the same percent of their income to the government. But all workers weren't covered. Later, more workers were.

This bill starts with a *universal* mandate that all workers pay DIFFERENT percents of their incomes, depending on their age, risk factors, employment site, etc. paying PRIVATE CORPORATIONS for PRIVATE PROFIT to receive DIFFERENT services, with the corps having the major say in determining payments & benefits, & being able to change them depending on market conditions.

That's the most important piece of this legislation, the keystone, & the most objectionable. The entire direction is wrong; nothing but repeal would fix it.

[tsuki]

35. What are you going to change with this bill? You are handing over

health care to the insurance companies. Here, it is yours, but we are going to make a few rules. But these rules can be eroded over time. You manipulate public opinion with the cost of the premium, we'll hand over vast amounts from the treasury, and sooner-or-later, the rules will be gone.

As we saw in Florida with Lawton Chiles health reform in the 1990, the creation of health co-ops to help small business buy-in, the changes of Bush & the Republicons were all related to that piece of legislation. Bush & Insurance Commission Bill Nelson gutted the legislation; co-ops gone, price controls gone, the right to third party negotiate gone.

By contrast, Medicare could be expanded because it was written that way, deliberately written that way. It is called the public option.

There is nothing in this legislation that can be built on.

[elleng]

36. The way it works:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20biden.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[tsuki]

46. For how long? Did you read my post. We had this under Lawton

Chiles when thousands of small businesses were finally able to afford to cover their employees. Governor Jeb Bush and Insurance Commissioner Bill Nelson dismantled the legislation and our premiums quadrupled in four years. All protections were rolled back. You start with this bill, they only place to go is back to where you were. Been there, done that.

[elleng]

81. In Florida

[Hannah Bell]

51. oh, the way it works is start with a universal mandate to buy private

insurance & sometime in the future it will evolve into something like medicare for all?

bullshit on that. you don't know how it works. more likely medicare will be slowly defunded, & more people pushed off to private insurers.

*that's* the real reason for this bill.

[olegramps]

83. Those benefits were added later. Check your history.

[FrenchieCat]

3. The meaning of Progress.....

progress
prog·ress (prgrs, -rs, prgrs)
n.
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
intr.v. pro·gress (pr-grs) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es
1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as medical technology progresses.
3. To increase in scope or severity, as a disease taking an unfavorable course.
Idiom:
in progress
Going on; under way: a work in progress.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/progress



Progressives
pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
n.
1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
3. Grammar A progressive verb form.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/progressive

[elleng]

29. Frenchie, I sure hope that folks around here would recognize such,

and other so-called progressives etc.

NOW kind of bugs me, for example.

Happy Holidays.

[Born_A_Truman]

4. FDR is DTM!

[Pirate Smile]

8. Primary Him!

[rudy23]

5. Hey, this apple tastes a lot more tart than this orange over here.

:evilgrin:

[nofurylike]

6. k&r. well said. thank you, impik. nt

[Hannah Bell]

20. yes, thank him/her for the falsehood.

The original Act provided only retirement benefits, and only to the worker.

The 1939 Amendments made a fundamental change in the Social Security program. The Amendments added two new categories of benefits: payments to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker (so-called dependents benefits) and survivors benefits paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[nofurylike]

24. i very much appreciate your correcting the facts. i regret not

making clear that i was supporting the sentiment that many considered heroes here, such as fdr and kennedys and others, also had to walk the tightrope suspended by the oligarchy we dare to try to take on,

yet do not receive the same scathing condemnation that obama does here.

thank you for the correction. i should have been more thoughtful, and more clear.

[Hannah Bell]

27. I feel this bill has fallen off the tightrope, myself. but sorry if i misunderstood you.

however, i also disagree with the secondary point in the OP; that SS took a long time to reach its present shape. It did not. The major features of the program were in place within 4 years, & they didn't include mandatory payments to private insurers who segmented the population into markets by age, sex & risk factors to make private profits.

Payments were 1) explicit & 2) identical (for covered workers).

Benefits were also explict & identical.

[elleng]

30. and we have NO IDEA what the future holds for this bill, near or far.

[Hannah Bell]

34. post #33. we certainly do. we can tell by what the non-negotiable element is.

differential payments based on age & risk factors to private corps for private profit, with corps having the upper hand in setting rates & services.

[nofurylike]

54. thank you, Hannah Bell. no, you didn't misunderstand me. i was

wrong, and off point.
i do see and appreciate the differences you are describing.

there is another difference i feel the OP was addressing:

there are more than enough examples of how DUers' heroes are people who have compromised and been compromised. there are also too many examples of the different standard being applied to president obama. i feel that that is what the OP was trying to express, and the sentiment i was supporting, albeit poorly.

there is no more monstrous institution than the insurance one. to get even this far is near miraculous...

unless, or until, WE will sacrifice ourselves to the massive change that will end that power.

until then, neither president obama nor anyone else, who could get elected, can do it in one sweep.

when he said he was all that was standing between the oligarchy and pitchforks, he was overestimating us. us.
we, for the most part, will not even write letters to our sens and reps. and when shrub did the WORST - from stealing elections, on - how many actually turned out in person? a teeny tiny fraction of a percentage of a number.
but so many who never turned out will threaten me with undermining my exhaustive reform work - with leaving for "third parties," or sitting out elections, and so on - for not doing it fast enough for them. those who don't even begin to grasp what it really will take.

the same goes for all the change our survival depends upon.

i know this is convoluted. i'm sorry.

thank you for engaging, Hannah Bell.



peace and solidarity

[Hannah Bell]

59. not convoluted at all. i appreciate it very much, believe me, when people

actually engage in dialogue v. trading snark.

i think there is something to the idea that obama is getting less "slack" than other presidents right now -- partly, i think, because the times are bad, partly because of people's frustration over bush's screw-ups & their desire for a change of direction (even on the right), & partly (i believe) because he's black (though i personally don't think that's primary).

but -- imo -- he's the one who campaigned on change & hope, & public criticism is part of the job.
i find myself uninclined to give him any slack, either. all his big decisions thus far have, imo, been in the wrong direction.

imo, obama (or his handlers) cynically ripped off the imagery of the left (fdr, jfk, the civil rights movement, "si se puede", etc.), & that's the "change" a lot of people "hoped" for--so far, in vain.

it was just "branding" to sell the same old bowl of stale cornflakes.

[nofurylike]

70. thank you, Hannah Bell. i share your feelings about snark.

i feel very similar to what you express in this post. and agree with you that we are more impatient for the reasons you express, including the extreme urgency of world conditions. and we agree that there are definitely many, many who are holding obama to an impossible standard for anyone, in hopes of felling him, because he is black.

one way i disagree with many now on DU is that no one *who could have been elected* would have done better, or more. nor could any one of them survive doing much more, or much faster. the increments we are forced to settle for are the only *possible* alternative to much, much worse. but there are increments happening. and they are inexpressibly important.

any more progress will depend on our taking responsibility for demanding congress do as we vote for them to do. letters, faxes, calls, emails and petitions are votes, and most people are not doing those.

what got me posting at all is the threatening being done - again, not by you (as far as i know) - to let the right take it all back, very soon. threats by people who have NOT taken responsibility for participating in the process, but still expect obama to do what then is impossible.

there is no way that returning power to the right would be better than what we are having to settle for at this time.

thank you, again, for discussing, Hannah Bell.


peace and solidarity

[Hannah Bell]

72. i'm more of the opinion that "left" & "right" triangulate & divide the populace to install

the policies the ruling class wants, which is why the movement to the right has been steady since the late 70s. but peace and solidarity to you too. Solidarity is definitely needed in these times.

[nofurylike]

74. i agree with you, absolutely. i work for us to take back this party

and take it left. and that takes us doing the work, not expecting the two-party-oligarchy to change itself.

until then, this we have now is, simply, the only option we have. but we can send in those votes, now, if people would just do so.

and believe me, things as they are now is as much compromise for me as for anyone anywhere.

we have to re-form this democracy, to allow for truly representative democracy, versus a two-party form.

thank you very much for peace and solidarity, Hannah Bell. "Solidarity is definitely needed in these times." yes yes yes.

[nofurylike]

88. brief. i forgot to add that it is that ruling class holding our lives

hostage to force this party to the right. devastatingly effectively, i agree.

organizing to use political process, with the further option of passive resistance, is the only chance we have. and that will not happen until the mass of dems are willing to actually lift a pen - well, or keyboard, even - for more than no-risk posting.


peace and solidarity, always

[olegramps]

84. That is the problem. It is the WRONG work in progress.

This bill essentially mandates that health insurance will be under the control of FOR PROFIT Health Insurance Corporations. It does not lay the foundation for single payer health insurance, but does exactly the opposite in assuring that this hopeful option has been strangled in the cradle.

As it is presently written it would take a dramatic change in the future to undo this virtual mandate. It would be more reasonable to assume that it could eventually led to the destruction of Medicare and Medicaid rather than expanding these agencies.

This is like a train that has come to a Y in the road and the train has chosen the Right Hand Track as opposed to the Left Hand Track and it will keep barreling down that road until it crashes and burns. For me this summarizes the course that our milque-toast representatives have doomed my children and grandchildren to. It doesn't get more insane than this when a single payer system would consume 3% of your contributions for heath care when our representatives essentially voted to give the health care rip off artists the right to consume 30% of your contributions so they can award themselves ten or millions of dollars in yearly compensation. Yes indeed, ONLY IN AMERICA!

[ClayZ]

7. K and R

[Hannah Bell]

82. another vote for fake history.

[ClayZ]

90. I will stand with the dems rather than the rethugs any day!

I am ready to roll up my sleeves and work for a better health care system.


If this is the launching pad. So be it. It is better than what I have, which is NO health insurance, because of preexisting conditions.

I am not a sell out.

[Hannah Bell]

91. has nothing to do with endorsing lies.

[BP2]

9. Yes, lots of amendments later, but

The Social Security Act vote was a blowout then compared to now: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/tally.html . It was widely supported by the public, too.

The Social Security Act bill was reported out by the Senate Finance Committee on May 13, 1935 and introduced in the Senate on June 12th. The debate lasted until June 19th, when the Social Security Act was passed by a vote of 77 yeas, 6 nays, and 12 not voting.

The Social Security Act was much more deliberative and transparent than the one they will be voting on final passage for in about 115 hours.

[FrenchieCat]

11. We are not in 1935 anymore.

So it can't be exactly done the same way.

I think considering, this process has been very deliberative.....

But the SS started with a commission.
I don't know how transparent that process was.

[Hannah Bell]

22. read up, then.

On June 8, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a message to the Congress, announced his intention to provide a program for Social Security.

Subsequently, the President created by Executive Order the Committee on Economic Security, which was composed of five top cabinet-level officials. The committee was instructed to study the entire problem of economic insecurity and to make recommendations that would serve as the basis for legislative consideration by the Congress.

The CES assembled a small staff of experts borrowed from other federal agencies and immediately set to work.

In November 1934 the CES sponsored the first-ever national town-hall forum on Social Security.

The CES did a comprehensive study of the whole issue of economic security in America, along with an analysis of the European experience with these perennial problems.

Their full report was the first comprehensive attempt at this kind of analysis in many decades and it stood as a landmark study for many years. In slightly more than six months, the CES developed a Report to the Congress and drafted a detailed legislative proposal

The Social Security Act

In early January 1935, the CES made its report to the President, and on January 17 the President introduced the report to both Houses of Congress for simultaneous consideration.

Hearings were held in the House Ways & Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee during January and February.

Some provisions made it through the Committees in close votes, but the bill passed both houses overwhelmingly in the floor votes. After a Conference which lasted throughout July, the bill was finally passed and sent to President Roosevelt for his signature.

The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement. (Full Text of President Roosevelt's Statement At Bill Signing Ceremony.)

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[FrenchieCat]

10. Some history of changes made to SS

Changes to the 1935 Act

There have been several important amendments to the original 1935 Social Security Act. In 1939, Social Security was modified to add benefits to the spouse or minor children of a retired worker. It also added a survivor’s benefit, paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker. Thus, with the 1939 amendment, the idea of economic security became a family-based program rather than an individual-based one, and one that provided benefits for retirement, disability, premature death, and medical costs after retirement. The payment of monthly benefits was accelerated to begin in 1940 rather than 1942. Interestingly, the first monthly retirement check was issued to an individual who had paid a total of $22.54 into the system and received $22,000 in benefits over her lifetime!

The next significant change to the SSA occurred in 1950, when the first cost of living adjustment (COLA) was added the program. This was a one-time increase in benefits of 7.7%; the next COLA occurred in 1952, a 12.5% increase. In 1954, a stipulation was added that would freeze a worker’s record during the years he was disabled and unable to work. This amendment avoided a worker’s receiving reduced or no benefits in the event of a disability.

In 1961, the retirement age for men was reduced to 62, with a reduced monthly benefit for those choosing to retire early. Several major changes to Social Security occurred with the 1972 amendment: automatic COLAs were instituted, a minimum monthly benefit was established, monthly benefits were significantly increased to those individuals waiting until age 65 to retire, and a system for automatic increases in the amount of earnings subject to Social Security taxation was developed.
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/506/infocus/p15.htm

[Hannah Bell]

18. The original Act of 1935:

The two major provisions relating to the elderly were Title I- Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance, which supported state welfare programs for the aged, and Title II-Federal Old-Age Benefits. It was Title II that was the new social insurance program we now think of as Social Security.

In the original Act benefits were to be paid only to the primary worker when he/she retired at age 65. Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions that the worker made during his/her working life. Taxes would first be collected in 1937 and monthly benefits would begin in 1942.

During this start-up period, the SS Board recommended the survivor's & child benefit & the amendment to the 1935 act was passed in 1939.

I.e. within 4 years (one term), all of the most salient features of SS were in place.

1. It covered most workers over 65 & their dependents.
2. The public funding mechanism for a publicly-administered program was established.

The only significant changes thereafter were COLAs & SS Disability, both done by 1954.

The rest of the changes have been just jiggering around the edges. The key elements were in place by 1939.

In contrast, the medical "reform" under consideration's basic element is having everyone paying various private insurers, who will continue to set different rates per individual characteristics.

That's its key element, the only one that is non-negotiable, apparently. Meaning: it's a move *away* from the Medicare/Medicaid "public" concept, with everyone paying the same rates & getting needed coverage up to the limits of the program.

The idea that SS started in the same fashion & then evolved into the most popular gov't program in US history is bull.

[eridani]

12. Yep. They required the widows and orphans to invest in the stock market

--or have the IRS deduct 2.5% of their income. Originally there was a small "public retirement option" available to 10% of them, but that got chopped out.

[Hannah Bell]

13. uh, no, it didn't. you might read some history yourself.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/1930.html


1935:

The Social Security Act

In early January 1935, the CES made its report to the President, and on January 17 the President introduced the report to both Houses of Congress for simultaneous consideration...the bill passed both houses overwhelmingly in the floor votes. After a Conference which lasted throughout July, the bill was finally passed and sent to President Roosevelt for his signature.

The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.

The Social Security Act did not quite achieve all the aspirations its supporters had hoped...Certain features of that package, notably disability coverage and medical benefits, would have to await future developments.

But it did provide a wide range of programs to meet the nation's needs. In addition to the program we know think of as Social Security, it included unemployment insurance, old-age assistance, aid to dependent children and grants to the states to provide various forms of medical care.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html


The original Act provided only retirement benefits, and only to the worker.

The 1939 Amendments made a fundamental change in the Social Security program. The Amendments added two new categories of benefits: payments to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker (so-called dependents benefits) and survivors benefits paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[itsrobert]

17. Looks like the Obama Corporalist are using Fox News tactics now

Claim something as true and don't recognize anything to the contary. Thanks of posting.

[Hannah Bell]

19. It's directly the opposite of the OP. The 1935 Act established benefits for workers over 65.

Survivors' benefits were added in the amendments of 1939.

Yeah, the OP *is* FOX-worthy.

[Blasphemer]

26. Thanks. A lot of crap becomes gospel around here... nt

[Garam_Masala]

15. Here is something from factcheck.org

In fact there are two official projections -- one by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and a somewhat less pessimistic projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The President referred to the SSA projection, which calculates that the system's trust fund will be depleted in 2042. After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits -- and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075.

The CBO doesn't project trust-fund depletion until a decade later, in 2052, and figures that the benefits cuts wouldn't be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits.

[Hannah Bell]

21. The SSA itself makes *three* forecasts, one "optimistic," one "pessimistic," & one

middle of the road.

Historically, real life has tracked the *optimistic* one most closely.

If you think anyone can forecast economic conditions 70 years into the future with much accuracy, well....

I don't know what to say.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=3612&page=6


Social Security Trustees' Reports: Crisis?
Posted by Hannah Bell in Editorials & Other Articles
Sun Feb 10th 2008, 11:54 AM
http://econospeak.blogspot.com /

The folks at Econospeak have done a public service by charting the GDP growth predicted in 10 years of Social Security Trustees Reports against actual GDP growth in the same years.

If you don't know how the SS Trustees Reports work, here's the short version.

Using economic & demographic data, the trustees make 3 forecasts every year:

1. Low-cost (optimistic about SS's future viability/cost)
2. Intermediate cost
3. High cost (pessimistic about SS's future viability/cost)

The intermediate forecast is the one considered most likely to occur; it's the one all the numbers you hear in the media come from. You know, the headlines like: "Trillion-dollar SS Shortfall!"

GDP growth is a key variable in these forecasts, & is itself aggregated from other data.

However, as it turns out, in 6/10 years, real GDP growth not only exceeded the growth predicted in the intermediate forecast - it exceeded the growth predicted in the "low-cost" (optimistic) forecast.

And in the low-cost forecast, SS chugs along forever, paying rising scheduled benefits, without going into deficit, without additional taxes - while accumulating a growing surplus! That is, current evidence suggests we need to reduce SS collections rather than increase them, & certainly there's no evidence for any radical overhaul or benefit reductions.

In only 2 years did GDP = the intermediate (supposedly most sound) forecast. In one year (the year of 911), reality was worse than the intermediate forecast. In one year, reality was in-between the optimistic & intermediate forecasts.

On average, though, over 10 years, reality turned out better than even the supposed "optimistic" prediction.

That is, the forecasts used to hype the SS crisis in the media are dramatically skewed to the negative.

But I'd bet that for most people reading this, it's the first time you've heard anything about it -- but you've heard A LOT about the coming SS "shortfalls," the "crisis," & the need for "change".

Why the deafening silence on this key point?


Year IC LC Actual

1997 2.5% 3.2% 3.8%
1998 2.5% 3.1% 3.9%
1999 2.6% 3.4% 4.0%
2000 3.5% 3.9% 5.1%
2001 3.1% 3.5% 1.0%
2002 0.7% 1.6% 2.4%
2003 2.9% 3.8% 3.1%
2004 4.4% 4.9% 4.4%
2005 3.6% 3.9% 3.6%
2006 3.4% 3.8% 4.7%

1997-2006 average IC = 2.92% LC = 3.51% Actual = 3.60%
2001-2006 average IC = 3.02% LC = 3.58% Actual = 3.37%

[PBS Poll-435]

16. What a dick.

FDR is DTM.

:grr:

[andym]

23. Well SS had serious limitations in 1935, but it did not start with just "widows and orphans"

The OP is incorrect. But SS was quite limited. If anything, initially SS in fact was tailored for white males not working in agriculture or for the federal goverment. So SS act of 1935 does make your general point about imperfect bills.

Here were some of the actual limitations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

"Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>"

[Hannah Bell]

31. The first person who got a standard SS check (not lump sum) was a woman.

Women as a group weren't excluded from SS benefits for being women.

The main reason for ineligibility was no or insufficient work history. It wasn't "intermittent" work per se, it was insufficient intermittent work history (= lack of vesting), the reason even today more women than men are ineligible for personal (as opposed to survivors') benefits.

So to say a bill designed to provide old-age income to workers was insufficient because it didn't cover non-workers -- women were only 26% of the workforce in 1940, & only 36% even during the height of WW2 -- seems silly.

The main reason more women are covered today is because more women work in the market economy, not because of changes in the SS regulations.

The exemption of domestic service hit mainly employed black women, 60% of whom were in domestic service in 1940. In 1940, when SS started cutting checks, 18% of employed women worked in domestic service, & the % declined steadily after the war.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/7027/

Most agricultural workers, pre-war, were white, (though blacks were much more likely to work in ag) & not all ag labor was male. Blacks were 40% of agricultural laborers in the South in 1940, & 55% of sharecroppers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cfhneJPcD38C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=%22agricultural+workers%22+percent+white+1940&source=bl&ots=v2H7Qrwnqg&sig=jOtVOCc73IzWd1_Gcxn3hCghv38&hl=en&ei=0AguS5DdO4nOsgPB_ZG7BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CC0Q6AEwCQ

But in 1940, only 17% of the workforce worked in agriculture, & by 1950 it was 5%.

Domestic workers & farmworkers got SS coverage in 1951. Failure of employers to declare or pay into SS is the main reason they still are poorly covered.

http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/Race,_Gender_and_Immigration.


Government (federal) employees had retirement covered by the earlier Civil Service; this is the reason they weren't covered in SS. Same with RR workers.

Teachers, librarians, etc. were not exempted categories in the federal legislation, nor were they exempted nationwide, but only in some regions/states, *by choice* of those regions, supposedly because they had their own pension systems in place as well.

By 1955, about 80% of the workforce was covered, & the main exemptions were groups with separate pension systems, like gov't employees.

Gallup polls of the time showed approval ratings for the program over 70%.



The comparison of SS to this med bill is a false one. The essential features were in place by 1940, & the most important one was the funding mechanism:

all covered workers would pay the same defined percent of their income to the government, who would pay them a defined benefit at retirement. The funding was in effect pay as you go, with each generation of workers paying the benefits for their elders.

OTOH, this med bill mandates differential payments to private corporations for differential benefits. The payments are based on age, sex & risk factors, with poorer & older groups more likely to have the highest payments.

For profit.

It's directly in opposition to the new deal principles of universality & non-profit at work in SS.

[andym]

49. You're correct "The essential features were in place by 1940"-- not 1935

The original bill (1935) was weak. Just like this one-- let's hope the same kind of thing happens.

In 1939, 4 years later it was made much better-- and then you are correct. But to be most accurate I would say essential features were really in place in the 1950s. Because it was then that they eliminated the job categories.


See Below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#1939_Amendments
1939 Amendments
Economic concerns
One reason for the proposed changes in 1939 was a growing concern over the impact that the reserves created by the 1935 act were having on the economy. The Recession of 1937 was blamed on the government, tied to the abrupt decrease in government spending and the $2 billion that had been collected in Social Security taxes.<29> Benefits became available in 1940 instead of 1942 and changes to the benefit formula increased the amount of benefits available to all recipients in the early years of Social Security.<30> These two policies combined to shrink the size of the reserves. The original Act had conceived of the program as paying benefits out of a large reserve. This Act shifted the conception of Social Security into the pay-as-you-go system.<31>

Creation of the Social Security Trust Fund
The amendments established a trust fund for any surplus funds. The managing trustee of this fund is the Secretary of the Treasury. The money could be invested in both non-marketable and marketable securities.<32>

The move toward family protection
Calls for reform of Social Security emerged within a few years of the 1935 Act. Even as early as 1936, some believed that women were not getting enough support. Worried that a lack of assistance might push women back into the work force, these individuals wanted Social Security changes that would prevent this. In an effort to protect the family, therefore, some called for reform which tied women's aid more concretely to their dependency on their husbands.<33> Others expressed apprehension about the complicated administrative practices of Social Security.<34> Concerns about the size of the reserve fund of the retirement program, emphasized by a recession in 1937 led to further calls for change.<35>

These amendments, however, avoided the question of the large numbers of workers in excluded categories.<36> Instead, the amendments of 1939 made family protection a part of Social Security. This included increased federal funding for the Aid to Dependent Children and raised the maximum age of children eligible to receive money under the Aid to Dependent Children to 18. The amendment added wives, elderly widows, and dependent survivors of covered male workers to those who could receive old age pensions. These individuals had previously been granted lump sum payments upon only death or coverage through the Aid to Dependent Children program. If a married wage-earning woman’s own benefit was worth less than 50% of her husband’s benefit, she was treated as a wife, not a worker.<37> If a woman who was covered by Social Security died, however, her dependents were ineligible for her benefits.<38> Since support for widows was dependent on the husband being a covered worker, African American widows were severely underrepresented and unaided by these changes.<39>
In order to assure fiscal conservatives who worried about the costs of adding family protection policies, the benefits for single workers were decreased and lump-sum death payments were abolished.<40>

FICA
A poster for the expansion of the Social Security Act
Social Security payroll taxes are collected under authority of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), and are sometimes referred to as "FICA taxes."
In the original 1935 law the benefit provisions were in Title II of the Act (which is why Social Security is sometimes referred to as the "Title II" program.) The taxing provisions were in a separate title, Title VIII. There is a deep reason for this, having to do with the constitutionality of the law (see discussion of the Constitutionality of the 1935 Act).
As part of the 1939 Amendments, the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code. Since it wouldn't make any sense to call this new section of the Internal Revenue Code "Title VIII," it was renamed the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."
The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system that is Social Security. Hence the name "Federal Insurance Contributions Act." FICA refers to the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.
Amendments of the 1950s
After years of debates about the inclusion of domestic labor, household employees working at least two days a week for the same person were added in 1950, along with nonprofit workers and the self-employed. Hotel workers, laundry workers, all agricultural workers, and state and local government employees were added in 1954.<41>
In 1956, the tax rate was raised to 4.0% (2.0% for the employer, 2.0% for the employee) and disability benefits were added. Also in 1956, women were allowed to retire at 62 with benefits reduced by 25%. Widows of covered workers were allowed to retire at 62 without the reduction in benefits.<42>
--------------------------

Amendments of the 1950s
After years of debates about the inclusion of domestic labor, household employees working at least two days a week for the same person were added in 1950, along with nonprofit workers and the self-employed. Hotel workers, laundry workers, all agricultural workers, and state and local government employees were added in 1954.<41>
In 1956, the tax rate was raised to 4.0% (2.0% for the employer, 2.0% for the employee) and disability benefits were added. Also in 1956, women were allowed to retire at 62 with benefits reduced by 25%. Widows of covered workers were allowed to retire at 62 without the reduction in benefits.<42>

[Hannah Bell]

50. The essential features of SS are the idea of retirement security & the

idea of defined payment & benefit, issued through a transparent public institution.

The essential features of this bill are already in place, too. That's the problem.

If you think Congress is going to revisit this 3 years from now to change its essential features, I believe you're mistaken.

The analogy with SS is false.

I didn't need the cut & paste from wikipedia. It refutes nothing in my post.

[andym]

62. Actually I think your own inital post supports my point better than yours

So there was no need to "refute" it. The Wikipedia article posted just further illustrated the evolutionary nature of SS. I could post more, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

My point is that SS was not universal at the time of its implementation in 1935, and that it has been fixed over time. But a lot depends on what the purpose of SS is and was designed to do. In some sense it is "a defined benefit and payment plan", as you write, but its purpose is to be a form of universal social insurance (not to act as a defined pension scheme). "The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near." (Helvering v. Davis, 1937 Supreme Court). So the idea of a generalized social insurance is there at the very beginning but the implementation was far from universal.

Was it just a system to help those workers who did not already have pension plans? Much of your reasoning in the initial post appeared to be making this point-- you mention that federal workers already had a pension, etc. Well they eventually were all allowed in even with pensions(which they receive in addition to SS, with some caveats). They were let in, because SS is a social insurance program, not a pension plan and is supposed to be at most complementary.

But more importantly then you list various examples of excluded people (domestics, agrarian workers, etc) all of whom were unfairly excluded. This is what had to be fixed. (It's true some of the problems disappeared as job types shifted, but that doesn't absolve the 1935 bill) To me the exclusions help illustrate that the 1935 act was not universal and had to evolve to approach universality (in fact it still was being criticized by progressives for having problems with qualifications favoring certain family structures as late as the 90s). When almost 50% of people don't qualify at first for a purported universal social insurance plan, that indicates significant flaws in its construction (especially its pay-in structure,-- eg, your example of women with intermittent work histories not qualifying). Many would argue that to be a truly universal program, more reform of the program is still necessary today.

The universal social insurance aspect explains why Medicare and Medicaid both developed out of Social Security (it is no accident that they are defined in the Social Security Act of 1965). Medicaid especially indicates the evolving broadening definition of social insurance that underlies Social Security in that the pay-in aspect is de-emphasized.
--------------

Now for the present Health care bill, all I stated was that I agreed with the OP that both SS Act of 1935 and the current bill are imperfect. That does not mean of course that the current health care bill = SS Act of 1935. IMHO, the current health care bill is FAR more imperfect than the SS act of 1935. It needs a lot more work before I can personally support it. However, the idea that even a poor bill can lead to something good does give me some hope even if they pass the current crap, because the stated intention is to create universal, affordable health care. If this principle becomes enshrined in Federal law, then I believe the chances increase that better legislation, probably achieved in an entirely different way (single-payer?) will eventually be created.

[Hannah Bell]

69. i agree they were brought in because SS was supposed to be a

universal social insurance. however, my point was to show that many of those you listed were *not* brought in immediately because they had other forms of protection from penury in old age.

women (or men) with intermittent work histories *still* don't qualify unless they worked enough to vest -- the same as in 1940. There's a specified time you have to put in.

However, the 1935 act also provided for old age assistance (e.g. welfare), so there was still a benefit, even for those folks.

I completely agree with you, this bill is *far* more imperfect than the SS act, & this is (beyond the complete errors of fact some people, not you, are spreading) my main issue with the comparison between the SS act & this bill.

I disagree with you that the 1935 act was a bad bill. It was not. It was a very good bill, just less than universal. The current bill, however, is a very *bad* bill that *is* universal.

The SS act included a reasonably fair, non-profit, funding & benefit mechanism. Everyone paid the same % of their earnings & got a payout based on what they paid in, with the high-lifetime earners losing a little & the low lifetime earners gaining a little.

Not everyone was covered initially, but from 0 to 50% to start off is more than this bill is covering.

Currently, about 15-20% of the population doesn't have health coverage. To solve this problem, this bill creates *universal* coverage by requiring people to purchase private insurance from for-profit carriers.

It is the *wrong* direction completely. Further "improvements" will follow this direction, & the most important one will be the *defunding* of Medicare (already begun), driving more people into private plans. That's what Bush's Medicare "reforms" were about, & this is more of the same.

This bill is part of a long-term strategy to destroy the entire concept of social insurance.

There's *nothing* similar to SS.

[andym]

75. I don't think the SS Act of 1935 was a bad bill, just imperfect

as I wrote it had "limitations". It needed a lot of improvement, but I do think it was a good start.

As for this health bill, my main problem is that it is will have difficulty achieving affordability and will not break the inflationary cost spiral which has it's roots in the toxic mixture of greedy insurers, pharma, care providers and hospitals.

There were two roads that could have succeeded here, one, single-payer-like solutions (or at least large government run public plans), the other, strong regulations to keep private insurers under control as is done in Switzerland so that they are essentially providing a well-defined non-profit plan, at an affordable cost using government negotiated prices with providers. Unfortunately, neither road has been taken.

However, perhaps I'm naive, but I believe a serious effort will be made next year (after this bill, financial and climate reform pass) to use reconciliation to expand Medicare perhaps even more than was proposed in this bill, hopefully to everybody. If they do it, then the same subsidies that are going the private insurers on the exchange can go to people who choose Medicare. They could even promote this by using the idea of saving Medicare, if they make the buy in cost a little more than the actual cost.

On the other hand, you could be right and this bill could be a first step toward destroying social insurance. Naturally, I hope you are not proven correct (as you yourself probably hope as well).

[Hannah Bell]

76. see, i don't understand why people think next year will be different,

& there's going to be some serious effort to expand medicare in an election year in which republicans are (if the present trajectory continues) going to gain seats.

i literally can't understand why you would think so.

if that's the direction our leaders wanted to take, they would have taken it *now*. they took a completely opposite direction, *now,* when they had momentum, public support & goodwill from the election.

they took the direction of privatization, & it's the same direction they've taken in education & other areas.

it's no accident; public functions & public funds are being privatized to pump up private profits--for the big boys, not the little businesspeople--who, i believe, will also lose here. it's not going to change next year. i'd bet $1000, double or nothing, on it.

i wish it were different, but i'm not so optimistic as you.

we'll see how it pans out, & i'll be happy if you're able to get back to me with "told you so" in the future.

[andym]

80. Two reasons I think they'll try for medicare expansion

1) Anger of liberal Representatives and Senators who were forced to give away the Medicare expansion at the last minute by an insincere colleague. They came so close, it will be very tempting. So they go for it for two reasons, they believe it's the best policy and they're pissed off. Since most of them were on board with the Public Option and/or Medicare expansiom, the votes should be there to get majorities (if they can get certain committees to act)

2) It's the only way they could actually carry out the strategy that was enumerated early on concerning the use of reconciliation to get a public option. Several of the key senators basically stated that would try to pass regulations by conventional means and then go for the public option by reconciliation, if necessary. Of course, it seemed obvious that if they had to do this, the problem would be filibustering Democratic Senators against the public option. And if this were the problem, the proponents of the public option could never execute this strategy directly because the filibustering Senator would withhold their vote from the needed regulations. (Of course, we could argue that the current regulations are not needed-- but there is at least one useful part, the subsidies (which could be applied to the expanded Medicare). So the only way they could proceed is by appearing to just go for the non-public option part. Are they doing this now? Who knows?

-------------------
The big problem here is that the physician and hospital organizations' lobbyists will work with the insurers to try to defeat it.

Anyway, let's see what happens.

[olegramps]

85. We all have the ability, if so desired to read up on the history of SS:

It isn't the point of the discussion. The point is simply this. Social Security as inaugurated had within its inception the framework by which it could be expanded to provide workers with addition protections under the control of the Federal Government. This present bill would have been analogous to FDR administration designing a bill that would require workers to contribute to a private insurance corporations that would administer and set the rates.

[Skittles]

25. "you people"? how about you check some SS facts

GOOGLE is your friend

[AllentownJake]

32. Did FDR mandate everyone pay Goldman Sachs for retirmenet and disability payments nt.

[hulka38]

37. Thank you Hannah Bell for recognizing and refuting the nonsense in the OP

and injecting facts and perspective into the conversation.

[Better Believe It]

38. If a single payer healthcare system was being proposed we could compare that to Social Security

But that's not what is being proposed in this legislation, the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act.

[hulka38]

39. The OP implying that Obama is doing something FDResque here is just too stupid.

[leftstreet]

64. +1

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. were we all forced to buy social security from the private sector?

[niceypoo]

41. My first thought exactly

The OP is comparing apples and oranges

[GeorgeGist]

42. We've always done it this way ...

is regressive thinking.

[nichomachus]

43. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't 1934

The political landscape is much different.

Remember wen they shoved Medicare Part D -- a Big Pharma giveaway -- down our throats.

The line was:

1. It's better than nothing
2. It will save lives
3. It's not perfect, but it's an important first step
4. We can "fix" it later.

(Do any of these lies sound familiar?)

It was better than nothing for Big Pharma
It may or may not have saved a life or two -- no evidence on that, though
It's not perfect -- but we've never seen a move toward a second step
No one has even mentioned "fixing" it
The issue is dead

This will be the fate with health care.

So, please stop pushing the bill with phony promises that it will be improved upon.

The bill is worse than nothing
It will set the cause of real health care reform back at least a generation

[brentspeak]

44. What the hell does this bill have to do with Social Security?

These forums just get dumber everyday.

[Armstead]

45. But you miss the point. he DIDN'T start SS as a mandate to buy private investments

That's the analogy.

What is being done with healtrhcare :reform" is starting out on the basis that we will all be forced to participate in privatye insurance, thereby embedding tghat as the ciornberstione instead of public interest coverage.

FDR would have been a sellout if he had done the same with Social Security. He didn't. Obama and the Democratic Congress are.

[depakid]

57. That poster wouldn't know an apposite analogy if it jumped up and bit him on the ass

nor apparently, is he in command of the facts.

Just another ideologue and cheerleader- who would likely support torture if his leadership told him to.

[donco6]

47. LOL! What a maroon.

If you condescendingly advise people to "pick up a history book", you'd better have done it yourself before you hit that "post" button.

How foolish you look! :rofl:

[Phx_Dem]

48. FDR was a betrayer and didn't care about people.

:sarcasm:
(for those who never get sarcasm)

[treestar]

52. Social Security for all! Kill the Bill!

:rofl:

What a giveaway to the orphanages! :rofl:

[kiva]

53. This thread is indicative of DU at this moment.

Even though the OP has been proven wrong it still has been recommended, proving that it doesn't matter to some if there are facts or lies, just whether or not the OP supports the C.O.P. (cult of personality).

[angee_is_mad]

55. Good job

and thank you.

[Hannah Bell]

60. OP is false. sorry you think spreading false info deserves a pat on the back.

[Cha]

56. Thanks, I'm learning a lot of history on

DU..never was that interested until I got here about 7 years ago.

[Hannah Bell]

61. a lot of fake history. OP is false.

[kiva]

68. Thanks for trying, Hannah.

But truth is one of the causalities of the 'defend at any cost' crowd.

[Hannah Bell]

79. they're pretty shameless, yes.

For how can you compete,
Being honor bred, with one
Who, were it proved he lies
Were neither shamed in his own
Nor in his neighbors' eyes?

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=2085

[last_texas_dem]

58. Unrec'd for false information (and unjustified smugness).

[leftstreet]

65. ditto

what crap

[neverforget]

63. I don't know what's worse: posting false info or those cheering it?

[Unvanguard]

66. Social security--small "s"'s--did indeed in the US. Them, and Civil War veterans.

And the actual federal program was designed to exclude Southern blacks.

But it was still a good thing.

[jeanpalmer]

67. And this HCR is starting with a private insurance system

I'm sure it will expand and improve.

[Hannah Bell]

71. it's already a universal mandate. how will it "expand"? & improve?

you're saying it's somehow going to change from mandated private insurance with for-profit insurers able to charge differential rates depending on age & risk factors?

you're saying it's somehow going to turn into universal medicare?

this is delusional.

it's going to lead to the defunding & destruction of medicare. this is why the private insurance mandate was the only non-negotiable item, & this is where the "cost savings" are going to come from.

SS was a good bill, though not initially universal.

This is a bad, universal bill. The only "reforms" will be to destroy what remains of "public options".

[EFerrari]

73. Medicare was supposed to lower its age of eligiblity ten years at a time!

You first.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

78. Your assertion is wrong on two levels:

1st: The notion of social insurance was already encompassed even in the limited bill that passed both houses of Congress in 1935. Like Medicare, it was expanded in 1939 with added amendments, but the notion of social insurance remained intact from the onset of legislation and survived past the amendments.

2nd: That is something markedly different from the health insurance bill being debated. There is no "social" anything because it appears there is no Public Option or even a Medicare buy-in without the loss of Joe Lieberman's vote. The heart of the bill is the mandatory purchase of private health insurance plans from for-profit companies.

At least with Social Security, the essential service being delivered was already socially owned. The same was true of Medicare when it first past. FDR and LBJ did something Obama did not do, so I don't see any justification to compare what is being done now to what passed 50 years ago or what passed 70 years ago.

[avaistheone1]

86. +1

[HughMoran]

87. Facts don't matter

Only screaming really loudly

[Hannah Bell]

89. since the OP contains no facts, just lies, you're right.

[Hello_Kitty]

92. You'd have a point if FDR passed mandatory 401ks.

But that's not what SS is.

Wonder how many DU supporters of this bill also support privatizing SS and vouchers for private schools. Because this is essentially the health care version of those things.