HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » FDR was a great big LIAR!...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:53 AM

FDR was a great big LIAR! See for yourself!

UnrepentantLiberal has posted a two-minute clip of FDR signing the Social Security Act. But even in a brief statement, FDR can't keep from lying: he claims that the Act is to help retirees!

We know he's lying because President Obama has repeatedly said that Social Security was not originally intended for retirees:

"Look: when Social Security was passed, it applied to widows and orphans, and it was a very restricted program".

"This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans"

Oh yeah, and the woman standing behind FDR in the clip? Frances Perkins, the first-ever woman to be a cabinet member, who not only never worked for Wall Street, she was an unabashed LIBERAL who thought government had a role in helping special interest groups like the poor, the elderly, and the sick. What a rube!

So stop fetishizing FDR already. He wasn't anything special.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

53 replies, 3278 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply FDR was a great big LIAR! See for yourself! (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Apr 2013 OP
uriel1972 Apr 2013 #1
Fumesucker Apr 2013 #2
uriel1972 Apr 2013 #3
KoKo Apr 2013 #4
datasuspect Apr 2013 #10
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #23
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #21
ProSense Apr 2013 #6
Arctic Dave Apr 2013 #7
ProSense Apr 2013 #8
Arctic Dave Apr 2013 #16
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #26
Doremus Apr 2013 #50
Politicalboi Apr 2013 #52
Doremus Apr 2013 #53
Comrade_McKenzie Apr 2013 #9
UnrepentantLiberal Apr 2013 #14
awoke_in_2003 Apr 2013 #19
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #27
deutsey Apr 2013 #33
abelenkpe Apr 2013 #28
L0oniX Apr 2013 #35
Autumn Apr 2013 #38
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #11
Autumn Apr 2013 #42
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #43
Autumn Apr 2013 #45
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #47
closeupready Apr 2013 #49
kiva Apr 2013 #12
Zorra Apr 2013 #13
MannyGoldstein Apr 2013 #15
99Forever Apr 2013 #17
L0oniX Apr 2013 #36
99Forever Apr 2013 #46
hootinholler Apr 2013 #18
L0oniX Apr 2013 #37
WillyT Apr 2013 #20
WorseBeforeBetter Apr 2013 #22
Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #24
betterdemsonly Apr 2013 #25
Lasher Apr 2013 #44
Lasher Apr 2013 #29
SidDithers Apr 2013 #30
L0oniX Apr 2013 #39
SidDithers Apr 2013 #40
L0oniX Apr 2013 #41
Uncle Joe Apr 2013 #31
hfojvt Apr 2013 #32
MannyGoldstein Apr 2013 #48
L0oniX Apr 2013 #34
arcane1 Apr 2013 #51

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:58 AM

1. I want to find this funny, but I can't...

And I thank you for posting this. The new 'Gilded Age' just before the next 'Great Depression'? Will we have to do it all over again? It seems so sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uriel1972 (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:00 AM

2. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." -Mark Twain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:03 AM

3. Heh, that it does...

Boom and Bust, down as far as the eye can see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:03 AM

4. Good Catch on that one Manny....!

When I heard Obama say that ...i thought he'd read a script from Petersen Foundation or Grover Norquist! Should have been first clue as to what his views were on SS and the people who depend on it.

He's been "Captured" by the Glow from Wall Street! I don't know if we can get him back...because they've got him squirreled away deep under the Goldman-Sachs fortress. No way to get in there...not even a "bunker buster" can get through those walls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:59 AM

10. he wasn't captured

 

he worked tirelessly to get his job and all the lifetime wall street perks that come with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:41 AM

23. chicago political machine.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:04 AM

5. Not only that, but FDR 'waited too long to do anything about getting people back to work'

Well, don't blame me, Obama said that also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 06:47 PM

21. Yep. Where does he get this stuff?

 

Does he truly not know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:05 AM

6. Presidential Statement on Signing Some Amendments to the Social Security Act --August 11, 1939

13. Presidential Statement on Signing Some Amendments to the Social Security Act --August 11, 1939

IT WILL be exactly four years ago on the fourteenth day of this month that I signed the original Social Security Act. As I indicated at that time and on various occasions since that time, we must expect a great program of social legislation, such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding. These amendments to the Act represent another tremendous step forward in providing greater security for the people of this country. This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations. In addition to the worker himself, millions of widows and orphans will now be afforded some degree of protection in the event of his death whether before or after his retirement.

The size of the benefits to be paid during the early years will be far more adequate than under the present law. However, a reasonable relationship is retained between wage loss sustained and benefits received. This is a most important distinguishing characteristic of social insurance as contrasted with any system of flat pensions.

Payment of old age benefits will begin on January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, 1942. Increase in pay-roll taxes, scheduled to take place in January, 1940, is deferred. Benefit payments in the early years are substantially increased.

I am glad that the insurance benefits have been extended to cover workers in some occupations that have previously not been covered. However, workers in other occupations have been excluded. In my opinion, it is imperative that these insurance benefits be extended to workers in all occupations.


The Federal-State system of providing assistance to the needy aged, the needy blind, and dependent children, has also been strengthened by increasing the federal aid. I am particularly gratified that the Federal matching ratio to States for aid to dependent children has been increased from one-third to one-half of the aid granted. I am also happy that greater Federal contributions will be made for public health, maternal and child welfare, crippled children, and vocational rehabilitation. These changes will make still more effective the Federal-State cooperative relationship upon which the Social Security Act is based and which constitutes its great strength. It is important to note in this connection that the increased assistance the States will now be able to give will continue to be furnished on the basis of individual need, thus affording the greatest degree of protection within reasonable financial bounds.

As regards administration, probably the most important change that has been made is to require that State agencies administering any part of the Social Security Act coming within the jurisdiction of the Social Security Board and the Children's Bureau shall set up a merit system for their employees. An essential element of any merit system is that employees shall be selected on a non-political basis and shall function on a non-political basis.

In 1934 I appointed a committee called the Committee on Economic Security made up of Government officials to study the whole problem of economic and social security and to develop a legislative program for the same. The present law is the result of its deliberations. That committee is still in existence and has considered and recommended the present amendments. In order to give reality and coordination to the study of any further developments that appear necessary I am asking the committee to continue its life and to make active study of various proposals which may be made for amendments or developments to the Social Security Act.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#1939b


Some of those excluded:

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. 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. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently. These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90 percent of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population. Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80 percent in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. 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.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Social_Security_in_the_United_States#Initial_opposition


link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:47 AM

7. Is this a, The law was flawed so we must get rid of it all together post?

 

Sounds like the same logic repugs use when they want to get rid of social safety nets.


"Someone is abusing the system so we must get rid of it all"!


Derp derp derp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:51 AM

8. No

"Is this a, The law was flawed so we must get rid of it all together post?"

...it's an every legislation can be improved (per FDR) so let's keep improving it post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022475178
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021871773

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:57 PM

16. Is that why Obama wants to bargain it away?

 

Seems these people are trying to tell him F off and keep his hands off of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:55 AM

26. your point being?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:12 PM

50. Good to remember also his use of "insurance benefits" to describe SS benefits.

Not "entitlement."
Not "luxury."
Not "goverment giveaway."


Insurance benefits, i.e., benefits that we pay premiums for.


RWers have a bad habit of forgetting that we PAY for SS. Thanks for posting this reminder.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doremus (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:44 PM

52. To me,

Paying for it makes it my entitlement. It's just somehow a bad word to say when if fact we ARE entitled to it. We paid for it. But if using that word makes it bad then I guess insurance benefits would be good too. But then wouldn't insurance benefits somehow get mixed in with Obamacare? These are the same people who thought Obama told them they didn't build their businesses, and believed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:50 PM

53. RWers use the word "entitlement" as a pejorative.

The word has become synonymous with "welfare," and "freeloader," thanks to the filthy spew of the RW propaganda machine.

SS *is* insurance against poverty in our old age. We pay our premiums our entire working lives and receive our benefits when we retire. The word "insurance" implies that there are premiums to pay (i.e. no handouts), and for that reason alone is infinitely superior to the word "entitlement" ... most especially when dealing with vacuous RW Fox viewers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:58 AM

9. I don't believe for a second that there won't be protections for seniors...

 

Whose sole income is social security, like my grandparents.

If I did, I'd be as pissed as everyone else today.

But there's a lot of seniors that still have many income streams from retirement funds, investments, and whatnot that won't miss a few dollars. It won't mean a damn thing to them and it's not worth a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:50 PM

14. Thanks for that, Third Way McKenzie.

 

But there's a lot of seniors that won't miss a few dollars.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:29 PM

19. And there are a lot of seniors...

who don't have many income streams. I guess they can just go get fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:57 AM

27. there's a lot of billionaires who wouldn't miss a few dollars either. why not go after theirs first?

 

'comrade'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:21 PM

33. Tax the billionaires?!?

Infidel!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:50 AM

28. It's OK to break a promise to those who are well off?

Surely the process for qualifying for full benefits won't be too demeaning or onerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:38 PM

35. Yea because so many seniors didn't lose their savings because of bank deregulation. pfffft!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:48 PM

38. There's a lot of seniors that don't have many income streams

from retirement funds, investments, and whatnot that will certainly miss a few dollars. It means a damn thing to them and it's well worth a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:06 PM

11. But he looked great in beach attire. Right?


Or was that somebody else? I always forget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:12 PM

42. I'm pretty sure that was FDR

and that hat... and that pen he used was awesome...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:18 PM

43. Don't forget the cigarette holder.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:27 PM

45. Ohhh I forgot that. I think that man will go down in history.

A great President and I might add, quite the hunk. I bet he had a really awesome dog too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:24 PM

47. he actually had a great quote about his dog and the Republicans


verbally attacking it for some odd reason or other.

These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala. Well, of course, I don't resent attacks, and my family don't resent attacks, but Fala does resent them. You know, Fala is Scotch, and being a Scottie, as soon as he learned that the Republican fiction writers in Congress and out had concocted a story that I'd left him behind on an Aleutian island and had sent a destroyer back to find him — at a cost to the taxpayers of two or three, or eight or twenty million dollars — his Scotch soul was furious. He has not been the same dog since. I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself ... But I think I have a right to resent, to object, to libelous statements about my dog!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:16 PM

49. His cousin, Teddy, was hot:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:14 PM

12. Yeah, that FDR, what liar.

Thank goodness we have a president brave enough to expose the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:41 PM

13. Oh, ouch. You just shattered any illusions I had left.

This is the piece of the puzzle that was missing for me, it is that missing piece of the puzzle that makes the rest of the puzzle pattern a simple matter to fill in, the piece I hoped I would never find. I did not want to be right; it sucks to be without hope. It made everything else fit together so easily. The puzzle is finished.

This is a good thing, and I thank you, and Unrepentant Liberal as well, harboring silly fantasies is not healthy, but at the same time, it makes me very sad, I have been hanging on to this ridiculous shred of hope, despite my original gut feelings, which I generally always trust. When I don't totally trust my intuition, I pay for it, like I am paying right now; the truth hurts.

For a Democratic President to publicly repeat such false statements, after he already had been called out on the same falsehoods just two months before as supporting evidence, while defending a deal that his administration made with Congressional Republicans to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy, can mean only three things, and I really don't feel comfortable posting these three things here.

I totally need to take a break from here now, and consider how I am going to rearrange my plans for my future.




The only solution is world revolution



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:51 PM

15. Stick around.

Necessity is the mother of invention. As folks are (finally!) starting to realize the necessity, the inventions will come - and the inventions will be poorer without your participation.

Regards,

First-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:04 PM

17. That'll leave a mark.

But there probably be pro that doesn't have the sense to even notice.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:40 PM

36. LOL ...luv that ...but you're gonna piss off the worshipers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:50 PM

46. Were good friends already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:28 PM

18. Thank you Manny! I used to admire FDR

But now that I plainly see what a forked tongue liar he was, that's it!

What an eye opener!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:43 PM

37. Oh but don't you know ...it wasn't perfect ...so now it must be chained oh erm changed.

Maybe it's a good thing it wasn't "chained" during a very depressed economy in the 40's ...oh wait ...we are in a depression now too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:30 PM

20. :)








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:41 AM

24. Kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:45 AM

25. Aid to Families with Dependent Children was for widows and orphans

This statement shows Obama is ignorant and does not know the difference between welfare and social security! Sad! Sad! Sad!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:20 PM

44. Welcome to DU.

You seem well informed regarding issues that are important to me. Watch out for those landmines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:10 PM

29. Obama’s Social Security Stumble

President Barack Obama rewrote the history of the Social Security system during a Dec. 7 (2010) press conference, claiming that only widows and orphans originally benefited from the program. Obama was defending a deal the administration reached recently with congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans for another two years:

Obama, Dec. 7: And that means because it’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise. This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans.


But the president’s claim is not true. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in 1935, benefits were not originally intended just for widows and orphans. From the SSA’s own historical page:

SSA: 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. (Under amendments passed in 1939, payments were advanced to 1940.)

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/obamas-social-security-stumble/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:14 PM

30. And it was perfect just the way FDR signed it...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:51 PM

39. www.democraticunderground.com/1017110752

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:57 PM

40. Thank you...

I need it every time I read one of your posts.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:04 PM

41. Weak stomach huh ...that figures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:15 PM

31. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Manny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:18 PM

32. Frances Perkins? Who the heck is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:14 PM

48. I was also surprised to find out about Perkins

Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:17 PM - Edit history (1)

She had great influence with FDR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:31 PM

34. Damn it all ...I'm going to worship him anyway. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:31 PM

51. Well, how 'bout that n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread