Consuming the Nation, the Legacy of FDR and the New Deal

Could they do any worse than the Democrats and liberals have done since FDR?

From the Supreme Court.....

The decisions that allowed the government to spend the Moneys collected for Social Security, and lie to us about having a trust fund.

One simple question? where is the current government in office going to get the money to redeem the Bonds in the Trust Fund?

From the beginning, they paid the social security from the currently collected fund and spent what was not required in general appropriation, and issued a bond from the government, but where is the government going to get the money to pay for those bonds?

The bonds are not money, to turn them into money that have to be redeemed, again where is the Government going to get the money to redeem them?

Today the government still collects the social security tax, pay the current recipient from that collection, puts what is left, and (as of today nothing is left over) and then issues a bond that has to be redeemed.

Isn't that what Bernie Madoff did?

Collected investments (isn't that the wording that the Democrats use to describe what social security is, a investment? Trust Fund?) issue stocks (bonds) if any one want to cash in the Stocks or Bonds, Madoff paid them with the new money from current (suckers) investors, and spent the rest, oh but He did issues bond, stocks, but what were they backed by? His word, faith and trust??????

And when a real crisis hit and the people needed their money, to support their retirement, families, loved ones, what happened?????

The whole dammed pyramided collapsed, just like we have happening today, the money is gone, and to redeem the bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund, the Government, is going to have to raise the taxes, not only on the wealthy, but every citizen from every social strata........

Yes, see what the FDR, the Democrats, the Liberals have left us from the Great Depression.....


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=301&page=548

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
301 U.S. 548

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO.
v.
DAVIS.
No. 837.

Argued April 8-9, 1937.
Decided May 24, 1937.​

The proceeds of the excise when collected are paid into the Treasury at Washington, and thereafter are subject to appropriation like public moneys generally. Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (May 3, 1937) 301 U.S. 308 , 57 S.Ct. 764, 81 L.Ed. --.
----------------------------

----------
Finally and chiefly, abdication is supposed to follow from section 904 of the statute and the parts of section 903 that are complementary thereto. Section 903(a)(3). By these the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to receive and hold in the Unemployment Trust Fund all [301 U.S. 548, 596] moneys deposited therein by a state agency for a state unemployment fund and to invest in obligations of the United States such portion of the fund as is not in his judgment required to meet current withdrawals.
_________________________________________________________________

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Case Name: FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603

NO. 54. ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 1960. - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1960. - 169 F. SUPP. 922, REVERSED.​

1. ALTHOUGH THIS ACTION DREW INTO QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 202(N), IT DID NOT INVOLVE AN INJUNCTION OR OTHERWISE INTERDICT THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2282, FORBIDDING THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION OR EXECUTION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS FOR REPUGNANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION, EXCEPT BY A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, WAS NOT APPLICABLE; AND JURISDICTION OVER THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY EXERCISED BY THE SINGLE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT. PP. 606-608.

2. A PERSON COVERED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS NOT SUCH A RIGHT IN OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED" INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. PP. 608-611.

(A) THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHTS TO BENEFITS ARE BASED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS. PP. 608-610.

(B) TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS AND WHICH CONGRESS PROBABLY HAD IN MIND WHEN IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. PP. 610-611.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

always amusing to try and see a rightie rewrite history in their favor. No problem was ever solved with a right wing solution. it has always been left to the liberals of the world to make it a better place. the new deal worked and anyone who says other wise is an idiot who doesn't want to understand history.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. pj, maybe you should start reading history, the only reason that the U.S. finnaly came out of the Depression was because of WWII not any of FDR's New Deal Policies, righ tup to WWII the Nation was still in the mire of Depression.

1932 to 1941, and the nation was still in the Depression, while much of the rest of the world was already in full recovery.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1998/4/98.04.04.x.html

Yes, and if the liberals solutions work so well why is Social Security now paying out, more than it takes in?

Social Security Payout to Exceed Revenue This Year - NYTimes.com
Mar 24, 2010 ... By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any ... will more than cover the difference between what it takes in and ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

Although Social Security is often said to have a “trust fund,” the term really serves as an accounting device, to track the pay-as-you-go program’s revenue and outlays over time. Its so-called balance is, in fact, a history of its vast cash flows: the sum of all of its revenue in the past, minus all of its outlays. The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year.

Now that accumulated revenue will slowly start to shrink, as outlays start to exceed revenue. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any given year.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s projection shows the ravages of the recession easing in the next few years, with small surpluses reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.

After that, demographic forces are expected to overtake the fund, as more and more baby boomers leave the work force, stop paying into the program and start collecting their benefits. At that point, outlays will exceed revenue every year, no matter how well the economy performs.
--------------------------------------------

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/news/economy/social_security_trustees_report/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's official: Social Security will reach its tipping point this year.

For the first time in nearly 30 years, the system will pay out more benefits than it receives in payroll taxes both this year and next, the government officials who oversee Social Security said on Thursday.

774Email Print CommentAnd while Social Security cash flow will likely head back into the black for a few years after that, starting in 2015 it looks to stay in the red for the long haul, the trustees said in their annual report.

"The improving economy is expected to result in rough balance between Social Security taxes and expenditures for several years before the retirement of the baby boom generation swells the beneficiary population and causes deficits to grow rapidly," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said.
---------------------------------------

If the liberal left has done so well in it's social programs why are Obama and the Democrats, stripping $500,000,000.000 dollars out of Medicare to fund Obama Care?

44 - Obama takes credit for healthier Medicare
Aug 7, 2010 ... well he should have taken credit since the annual report from the .... His ObamaCare program will cut $500 billion out of Medicare and ...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/obama-takes-credit-for-healthi.html

A Fraud Exposed — and Ignored - By James C. Capretta - Critical ...
Aug 10, 2010 ... If the Medicare cuts in Obamacare are to be believed (a big “if”), ... so absurdly unrealistic that they can hardly be taken seriously at all. ... is that Obamacare intends to take $500 billion of Medicare taxes that we ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/242932/fraud-exposed-and-ignored-james-c-capretta
-------------------

No pj, no rewrite just facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And why would WWII help us out of the depression? It's because government (tax) money was being invested in business. That's socialism. But FDR's spending also helped to get us out of the great depression, and his social programs are some of the most successful of all time, including social security, which is solvent for another 37 years at least, and even then, it can be fixed simply by raising the cap on social security taxes. So to re-cap, Republican pro-business anti-regulatory policies get us into depressions, Democratic policies get us out. Can it be any more clear?

 

It's striking how ignorant most Tea Party Republicans are about the mechanics of US government legal structure, services, and agencies - they seem to have no idea how Social Security was set up to work, for example here.

That's a major expense, a significant program, and the fact that it is due to have to tap its special purpose Baby Boom trust fund soon - a fund invested in US bonded debt, by law, as safety was always the primary concern, and which will therefore be collecting from the US taxpayer as designed - seems so utterly shocking to them.

The generational failure of the American high schools to teach US Civics and History is turning out to be pretty significant, politically.

 

Indeed it is.

 

Yes it can, the unemployment right up to 1940 was still 15%, starting in 1938 we had to start ramping up our war industries to supply our allies, nothing to do with FDR's New Deal Policies.

In 1940 it was recognized that we would become involved in the war and a major increase in the draft was ramped up, to supply the projected man power needs of the military, again nothing to do with FDR's New Deal Policies.

The war production that drove our unemployment numbers below 5% had nothing to do with FDR'd New Deal Policies, it had everything to do with the fact that we were fighting for our National Existence, and the survival of Democracy in the world.

Under FDR's New Deal Policies we had remained in depression, and just as today, Wall Street had stabilized, and was making money, but Main Street was still unemployed, people were still losing their homes, businesses were still failing, unemployment was still at 18%, and the majority of people were still in poverty, just scraping by to survive.

It was the fact that we supplied the rest of the allies with war material that brought us out of the depression, and the fact it was the United States that rebuilt the rest of the world that provided the impetus to end the depression, not FDR's and the Liberal's New Deal.

 

Of course massive spending on war programs caused a decrease in unemployment, but that doesn't mean that New Deal programs did not work. Included among them were many reforms that generated lasting benefits that continue to this day. Your interpretation of history is not shared by most historians, and is probably influenced to great degree by the pro-business anti-regulation special interests that seek to downplay the role of government in addressing just this kind of crisis.

 

Name one that isn't broke and in need of massive tax increases to even try and make them viable.

 

Social security isn't "broke".

 

A bit of a sidetrack:

Just want to Thank Buffalo Roam for all his wise,educational,evidenced backed post.Between Buffalo Roam & Billy T, I have learned so much from these 2.Please keep up the generous sharing of knowledge and I'm sure there are several readers/lurkers inspired and excited to read up on their post.Sure beats any college or text book.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1

Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Published: March 24, 2010

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office. ------------

--------Although Social Security is often said to have a “trust fund,” the term really serves as an accounting device, to track the pay-as-you-go program’s revenue and outlays over time. Its so-called balance is, in fact, a history of its vast cash flows: the sum of all of its revenue in the past, minus all of its outlays. The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year.-----------

--------Now that accumulated revenue will slowly start to shrink, as outlays start to exceed revenue. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any given year.------------

----------Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s projection shows the ravages of the recession easing in the next few years, with small surpluses reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.

After that, demographic forces are expected to overtake the fund, as more and more baby boomers leave the work force, stop paying into the program and start collecting their benefits. At that point, outlays will exceed revenue every year, no matter how well the economy performs.



Security Trust Fund? where are they going to get the money? the money was placed into general revenues like any other tax, budgeted out by Congress, and a Bond was issued from Congress to the Trust Fund a branch of the Government.

Now explain how Congress is going to redeem the Bonds in the Social Trust Fund.......Congress get all money through taxes.........or prints it.........can you say higher taxes......inflation........double dip.......

 

As if regurgitating right wing talking points amounts to an education? More like revisionist history. Social security works, in that it is largely citizen-financed, and it prevents the worst aspects of poverty and disability.

 

The same place as they're going to get the money to pay all of the other bonds they've issued, presumably. If that was a rhetorical question, it should have been followed by some rhetoric that aknowledges and responds to the obvious answer.

Also, where were you when the government was issuing trillions of bonds to pay for wars and tax cuts, without any plan for how to pay for them?

 

Tip: Sarcasm is often impossible to spot in this forum.

Just in case:

15%, 18%, whichever (Buffalo has trouble with physical facts and numbers) are both much lower than 25%, which is where things had stood a couple of years before.

If you are curious about what happened to the initial success of the New Deal - a 10% drop in the unemployment rate (nominal 40% drop in unemployment) in two years, without the level of wage deflation we are seeing now - a read of the history of the time is recommended: the midterm elections in '38 showed successful backlash from the corporate right (Republican, spouting rhetoric similar to Tea Party stuff today), compromise with that faction in the White House, and opposition from the Supreme Court FDR had inherited.

In other words, the Tea Party folks won the backlash in the midterms, and the country stagnated until WWII.

Obama's efforts have not been on New Deal scale - less than half the size recommended by most Keynesians to begin with, they have also been compromised and undermined far more in Congress. And of course he inherited the huge Reagan/Bush debt and obligations. So the backlash should have worse effects - plus the Republican backlashers are apparently more corrupt and less competent this time around.

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

So your arguing it wasn't the new deal but a different sort of government funding that proved the liberal idea behind fixing the economy works. the economy was well on its way to recovering before world war 2 world war 2 helped end it because it INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING

I'll leave that up to you. I'll just stick to the actual facts which is the new deal worked. hell probably the main reason it was so bad pre ww2 is the hick up that happened when we followed the policies you like.

 

Please provide the numbers please.

Like a graph of the unemployment numbers from those years.......

Production Out put from showing that there was a recovery taking place under FDR's New Deal......

When you look them up, there was no recovery taking place on Main Street, there was still stifiling unemployment, and the people of main street were still scraping by just to live.

We were headed into a 3rd dip in the depression in 1938 until we started to increase our factory production to supply the warring parties around the world.

That is the problem with you pj, you leave it up to everyone else provide proof, and then you provide nothing but your smart a@@ attitude.

 

The New Deal fed those people without jobs, it provided jobs for all kinds of public improvement projects that we still enjoy. GDP from 1933 (the year FDR was elected over the ineffectual Hoover) to 1939 witnessed a 60% increase; the amount of consumer products bought increased by 40% while private investment in industry increased by 5 times in just six years.

This whole offensive against the New Deal is an effort by RepubliCorp to privatize social security in order to steal trillions from the American people.

 

And the unemployment was rose to 18% in 1938 and didn't drop below 15% until 1940, so what did the New Deal do to put people back to work?

Again, a big difference between Wall Street and Main Street, A depression is when a economy is operating significantly below capacity, and is is often identified as an unemployment rate of 15 percent or above.

Spidergoat, again tell me exactly where that money is? Bonds in the Trust Fund?

Again how does the Government convert those bond to money?

Raise taxes......

I have referenced the Supreme Court Cases that show the money was spent, it had to be place in the General Funds, and could not be earmarked, and that you and I have no legal claim on any money in the Trust Fund.

I have also cited the fact that as of this year the Social Seurity system is now paying out more than it take in and by law it cannot pay out more than it takes in, so again how are they covering this? converting the Bonds back into cash? again where does the government get the cash to convert bonds that they issued to a government program (themselves) back into cash?

There is only two way that the Government can raise money......

Taxes....

The Printing Press.......

or cut benefits......raise retirement age.....change the system......

The really funny thing is that when you read the options that the Conservative forward, they include keep the people 55 and older on the ols system, why because they need that to really retire in most case, the change that The Conservative wan to make is for those under 55.

You would still have the money taken out of your check, but you would have to choose a investment program.....be it on Wall Street or even a Government Program.....or one of the many other retirement programs out there.

The advantaged to the Conservative program are....

Much higher returns......

The ability to retire earlier......(which would also help the employment situation)

The money is feally in a lock box to which you have ownership right......

The Money will be passed on to your heirs when you die improving your familys economie status......

You control your own money vs:

The Government collects it.....spends it......puts it into bond from it's self to it's self.....the money which is suppose to be in your lock box goes to the government when you die (which really means you don't cost them any more money) and final dirty little secret......The Govenrnment doesn't have to pay any Social Security.....you have no right to that money and thta is confirmed by Supreme Court Case Law.......

The U.S. Supreme Court 1960 in the case of Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960),

The Supreme Court :

"To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."

You have no 'accrued property rights' to any Social Security lock Box Money, the Lock Box is the property of the Government.......