Question:
When Social Security began it was called Old Age Pension? Why is the PotUS saying it's for Widows & Children?
Banker
2010-12-08 22:50:10 UTC
I had now heard Pres Obama make the statement: "Social Security was established for Widows and Children by FDR" , from my History Lessons, that would not be a true statement. FDR suggested an 'Old Age Pension' for old people during the depression, people who could no longer work a regular job and support themselves. What is the PotUS talking about? Is he rewriting History or not a good history student?
Thirteen answers:
2010-12-09 06:19:51 UTC
This is the title of the original bill as agreed upon during Conference Committee, signed into law August 14, 1935:



"SOCIAL SECURITY ACT P.L. 74-271

AN ACT

To provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes."







This legislation passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans. In the House, only 15 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against it. In the Senate, only 1 Democrat and 5 Republicans voted against it.



Here are some scans of original House and Senate documents related to the process of passing the Social Security Act:

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



Clearly, from the beginning Social Security was established to provide for every group you mentioned in your question.





Why the thumbs down? This information was taken directly from the Congressional records at the onset of Social Security. I didn't write it. LOL

Best not let a silly thing like facts stand in the way of perceived truth?
Diane
2016-04-24 04:50:57 UTC
Why shouldn't they receive social benefits just like anyone else? They presumably paid into the benefits - it's not your children supporting them, it's everyone supporting everyone. And by not creating the next generation, they are saving the system tax money that would have gone to the public school systems, youth programs, health care, and other various social services aimed towards children and families. The children that are not born cannot grow up to become welfare recipients, or end up under the care of the state. The children they did not have cannot consume tax dollars that every human being in the system consumes. So they're not wasting THOSE tax moneys, which can add up to a LOT of strain on the system. Give them their benefits! It's a small price to pay for them to save the rest of us some money by selflessly choosing not to breed! The non-existent children are also not consuming goods which pollute the earth, either through their creation or disposal; they're not using energy; they're not getting sick and being treated by the health care system; they're don't have a carbon footprint, and they're generally not wasting any resources whatsoever, because they don't exist! Childless people are also not only helping preserve the environment and saving taxpayers for one generation, but for EVERY generation! There will be no grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren to waste money and use resources, etc.
prusa1237
2010-12-09 05:59:21 UTC
Obama was incorrect that Social Security was anything but an old age retirement system since we had a widows and orphans fund since the Civil War Pension Program. "It must be nice to be a Democrat and be able to say whatever you want, regardless of factual basis, with total impunity. Just imagine the media firestorm such a repeated error would create if Obama was a Republican."
callenqhranch
2010-12-09 14:35:18 UTC
Obama needs some older people who have lived and worked in America as something other then a Professor...................



Social Security was set up because of the massive bank failures during the depression...the "everyday man" as the public was referred to as lost everything the rich lost a little...



Widows and Orphan Fund was set just after the Civil war...the fund grew as the number of Widows subsided(shrunk) either do to adoption of the children or remarriage of the Widows.



"half-pay pensions to veterans' widows and to their orphan children until they reached the age of 16. Civil War Legacy ... been grouped with the older World War I veterans covered by U.S ..."





As it is with any government program the Democrats saw a potential to use that money for another purpose hence the birth of the Welfare program (rewarding people for not working)...



Politicians just can't stand it if they are not taxing the American people to the hilt to take care of their supposed "poverty relief programs"...!



1964

LBJ and his Democratic led Congress created the biggest theft in history with "The Great Society Program"....War on Poverty: forty programs that were intended to eliminate poverty by improving living conditions and enabling people to lift themselves out of poverty...





2010



36 years later the War on Poverty has failed...miserably...There are more people in Poverty today and the Number of newly poor growing...



yet the current budget for the called WAR on Poverty has increased to a point of absurdity...The government employees working and monitoring the system created to rid America of her poverty are living well above the poverty line...the people who are supposed to be enabled and lifted from their poverty did not do so well nor will they ever with the system giving very little to the recipients and the majority of the budget taxpayers dollars to the government workers...
2010-12-08 23:03:29 UTC
This temporary program, which Obamacare promoters cited as a success, is just an excuse to tax and spend, there never was any real "fund" just a figure on a piece of paper, the money goes out of teh general budget every year, now it's broke. On top of that all the public union funds that are broke too. People used to be able to sell wood, food, poultry, milk etc. but when FDR got the government into all that what many elderly or handicapped people did on their own to support themselves was cut off, local taxes went up when the federal government ran short of cash and they were forced out of their homes. Today, government is still forcing jobs overseas with regulations and taxes, and still can't figure out why government can't produce real jobs or GDP growth, and unemployement (the real number) continues to grow, as is the number of Americans living in poverty, while dems say we need more immigration and spending as the solution.
Kini
2010-12-09 15:46:13 UTC
Since most women could not work, if their husbands died, their wives got widows benefits. When the husband finally stopped working it was the old age pension. Perhaps roosevelt intended this for widows and orphans and the final bill included retirement pension.
Mikeohhhh
2010-12-08 23:03:45 UTC
Actually, "social security" is officially known as Title 42 of the US Code, and is codified as "The Public Health and Welfare" act. This does include widow and orphan benefits.
Chin T
2010-12-08 22:59:40 UTC
He is trying to rewrite history, or should I say he thinks that the American public is to dumb to understand that SS was marketed as an insurance policy for retirement.

The old saying History is written by the victor does NOT apply here, as Obama is not wearing the flag of a victor any longer, and he did not have any part of the start of Social Security.

But his base is so uninformed and so conditioned to believe that everything is an entitlement rather than a savings account.

SS is a sort of savings/insurance system and it had better NOT become "means tested"

For if it does we should all quit paying into it.

Means testing is a way to make SS only pay those who need the money.

But it was never designed as a welfare type retirement fund, it was a forced insurance policy for retirement regardless of necessity, and they have robbed it several times as a slush fund.

But that cannot, or lets say cannot ethically call it something that should be means tested as in leading up to that idea through saying it is for Widows and Children.





Don't Means Test Social Security

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/01/29/dont-means-test-social-security-lets-not-kill-the-golden-goose-.html

No "Means Testing" for Social Security

http://moneyandsuch.blogspot.com/2010/07/no-means-testing-for-social-security.html



James Clyburn Supports Means Testing for Social Security

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/28/james-clyburn-supports-means-testing-for-social-security/
2010-12-08 22:54:16 UTC
Social Security has expanded over the many decades it has been around.

The president happens to be right. For example, if your are a minor and your father

dies, you get a piece of his SS money when you turn 18. In the meantime your

mother, now a widow, gets most of it for herself and is the guardian of your funds

until you turn 18.
justm399
2010-12-08 22:59:45 UTC
Widows and children have been covered under social security since 1939.



so I guess you are the one who needs to study up.
Capt Cold
2010-12-08 22:53:44 UTC
It was established for all four... retired, widows, orphans and disabled. That was the intention from the beginning.
2010-12-09 06:40:26 UTC
Remember your talking about Obama here right, should be enough said.
Sky Blue Waters !
2010-12-08 22:54:07 UTC
Pay no mind to him..He just talks to talk...


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...