Re: OT - "lie" vs "error"

From: Joe Zitzelberger (joe_zitzelberger_at_nospam.com)
Date: 03/25/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:37:21 -0500

In article <d1uob4$1nk$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-F9D03B.08572724032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
> >In article <d1u4uk$hcc$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <joe_zitzelberger-5ACE7B.23304623032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> >> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >While on the (off-topic) topic of politicians claiming it is an
> >> >investment, not a tax, here are some selected quotes from the MacDaddy
> >> >of the program himself, Mr. FDR.
> >> >
> >> >He should server quite well to address questions about when 'the state'
> >> >claimed that Social Security was insurance and not a tax -- that is how
> >> >he sold it to the people when he was the head of 'the state'. Few
> >> >Democrats have had original thoughts since.
> >>
> >> Ummmm... the most recent quote you show appears to be from 1935 and states
> >> what the system 'should be'; this thread has already shown a quote from
> >> the IRS dated 1939 showing what it had become.
> >>
> >> (All of the quotations you post indicate that the Social Security program
> >> was not in existence ('funds... should be raised, system... should be
> >> self-sustaining'), indicating that it is not yet in existence; it is
> >> compared to the New York State Old Age Pension Act where it appears
> >> that 'funds are raised from taxation'.
> >>
> >> This has been going on a few days, now... fascinating that saying 'social
> >> security is not a tax, but an investment' is so very common that it is
> >> easy to find citations of it.
> >
> >I know what it was from the start -- a tax. But there are many that
> >have long claimed that it was not. The oft cited canard about
> >'contributions' financing ones 'insurance' is an obvious
> >misrepresentation -- or more accurately a 'lie'.
>
> This 'canard' has been mentioned here repeatedly and yet nobody seems to
> be able to bring up a cite for it.
>
> [snip]
>
> >However, the two times I googled the topic I quite quickly found two
> >cites that indicate there was gross misrepresentation of the program as
> >'insurance-not-taxes' from the beginning.
>
> It should be easy enough to bring them forward, then. Would you be so
> kind as to do so?
>
> DD

If it is not enough to have FDR's statement from 70-odd years ago where
he said _publically_:

"Get these facts straight, the Act provides for two kinds of insurance
for the worker. For that insurance both the employer and the worker pay
premiums -- just as you pay on any other insurance policy...Here the
employer contributes one dollar in premium for every dollar of premium
contributed by the worker; but both dollars are held by the government
solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age."

of course that was totally false under the provisions of the act as it
was first passed and ever since.

However, if 70 year old cites are not good, how about the current Senate
Minority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada. His website at
"http://reid.senate.gov/socialsecurity/index.cfm" repeatedly refers to
the "insurance" myth, for example:

"It is much more than just another financial investment and I am
committed to ensuring that it remains a stable and secure insurance
policy"

and the guaranteed benefit myth:

"I am concerned that replacing Social Securitys defined benefit with a
system of private accounts would result in the loss of guaranteed level
of benefits for the more than 46 million Social Security recipients."

and

"Social Security was designed to be an insurance plan, not an investment
program. Instead of guaranteed benefits based on an individual's work
history"

Even thought the program is not, and never was, insurance (see Helvering
vs. Davis 1937). Nor were there ever any guaranteed benefits. (see
Fleming vs. Nestor 1960). Though this is the way it was, and still is,
sold to the people.

So why do all workers have a Social Security ACCOUNT Number?

And why such an outcry in the early Bush administration when ssa.gov
started representing the program as the law structures it? Unless it
had been previously misrepresenting?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Insurance Is Not Free
    ... that *insurance is not free*... ... costs a huge amount, money that most folks just never see... ... Did you know that Social Security Supplemental Income and Disablitiy ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Social Security in France, who is covered, how it is financed
    ... Social Security in France ... "The Social Security is financed by payments from both employers and their ... Alongside the movement for mutual, private social insurance, legislators ... payments to injured employees. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The end is in sight
    ... which frankly pales compared to the Social Security and Medicare ... free universal health care that excludes nobody. ... insurance. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: TK was exactly right. OT
    ... Good drivers "don't need" car insurance either, ... their retirement years, railing at any attempt, however ... the 1970s and 1980s to protect Social Security. ... Security tax and finance benefits with general revenues. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: If It Wasnt For Social Security, I Could Get Rich in the Stock Market -- Yah Right!
    ... the DOW has probably lost money or maybe broke about even. ... if it weren't for Social Security? ... notorious for not having enough life insurance. ... and that working people typically invest for retirement in monthly ...
    (soc.retirement)