The real reason FDR enacted Social Security?

President Roosevelt enacted Social Security during the Second New Deal in 1935 but his reasoning was not directly because of the people but rather he wanted to steal the thunder of a growing political figure from Louisiana who openly challenged the Democratic Party and FDR himself.

In private, Roosevelt candidly admitted to trying to "steal Long's thunder."

Social Security Act was not the only new legislation during the Second New Deal he also enacted; Works Progress Administration, National Labor Relations Board, Aid to Dependent Children, National Youth Administration, and Wealth Tax Act of 1935.

Could he have enacted all of these pieces of legislation simply because he wanted to steal the thunder of Louisiana Senator Huey Long? Huey was a fierce Populist and this was proven when he challenged his Party and Roosevelt through his creation of the Share Our Wealth Society which Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith was assigned to manage in 1934. By 1935 the network had 7.5 million members in 27,000 clubs across the country.

To understand how Huey Long was considered such a threat to President Roosevelt and why he was so worried about stealing his thunder you need to learn about the policy initiatives of Long.

He was a staunch populist and believed, as did other Senators, that the Federal Reserve was the cause for the Great Depression. He was a staunch opponent of the Federal Reserve and large banking houses such as Morgan and Rockefeller whom owned stock in the Federal Reserve. He believed these houses controlled and manipulated the Fed to help them become wealthy at the expense of the nation.

He was also popular for supporting placing a cap of personal fortunes, income, and inheritance. He drew a large audience when he published his own national newspaper called ‘American Progress’. In 1934 he unveiled his extremely populist economic plan known as ‘Share Our Wealth’. Long’s argument was that there was more than enough money in America for everyone to live comfortably but it was wrapped up in the hands of a few bankers, businessmen, and industrialists.

In 1933 he proposed tax legislation that would cap all personal fortunes at 100% by establishing a progressive rate such as $1,000,000 = 1%, $2,000,000 = 2%, and so on. A second bill was proposed that will cap all incomes at $1,000,000 and a third bill that would cap all inheritance at $5,000,000.

On his radio program in 1934 he told his audience about his proposals. He claimed the funds would result in a household grant of $5,000 and a minimum annual income of $2,000-3,000. Long also proposed free college education and vocational training, old-age pensions, veterans’ benefits, federal assistance to farmers, public works projects, more federal regulation of economic activity, a month’s vacation for every worker, and limit the work week to 30 hours to boost employment.

Obviously he was accused of being a Socialist and that his economic plan, ‘Share Our Wealth’, was a Socialist plan. He argued that he did not draw inspiration from Karl Marx but rather from the Bible and the Declaration of Independence.

"Communism? Hell no!" he said, "This plan is the only defense this country's got against communism."

He claimed that the only way to ward off a violent Socialist revolution was to radically change the economy and close the disparity in income but keeping the essential features of Capitalism. He proposed a bill in the Senate and it was rejected, he responded by stating:

"[A] mob is coming to hang the other ninety-five of you damn scoundrels and I'm undecided whether to stick here with you or go out and lead them."

It was also said that Roosevelt needed to steal his thunder because they believed he was planning of forming a third party and challenging Roosevelt in 1936 presidential election.

However on September 8, 1935 an assassin shot Huey Long in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was alive for two days in the hospital and reportedly his last words were:

"God, don't let me die, I have so much left to do."

This leads me to wonder who killed Huey and why? Could it have been a set up by FDR himself? Could it have been set up by the Fed? The Big Bankers? Really it could have been any person who was opposed to his ideals and proposals. This leaves open a long list of candidates.

But it still brings us back to why I believe Social Security was enacted, FDR wanted to steal the thunder of Huey Long. It had nothing to do with wanting to help the people but just to gain more popularity with the people. That is a very dirty move.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Misoir


i think i am going to agree here with you fdr was not the savior of the republic for which he is so well known as but he and his policies were the biggest detriment to this country and his legacy still lives on.

every single thing fdr did was to solidify his own power in this country and the peasants did not know any better then nor do they know now people should learn from this countries history that is if it was really taught in our school systems.

it's a sad state of affairs that when you seek knowledge everyone one turns to the one place that they can not censor and rewrite even they try as the might its too big and too redundant and the truth is always out there.

social security was a noble at idea at the time but as with all social programs there are those who abuse it and they do nothing but create half funded half assed programs that serve the betterment of noone but the party in power.

sad really.

reply to post by neo96


So I am going to agree with you on Social programs? Wow, that’s a kick in the teeth.

I do think that they are manipulated by whoever is in charge whether it is being run into the ground by Democrats or being picked at by Republicans. Every Social program has been continuously turned into worthless debt through constant mismanagement and abuse.

IMO we should abolish all Federal Social programs and allow the Local communities to manage them. Such as the county or the city, that would permit more transparency, accountability, and effectiveness.

Great post. Most people even in Louisiana (where I'm from) don't know about Huey Long, even though some cross a bridge with his name every day over the mississippi.

reply to post by Misoir


FDR didn't 'enact' anything. Congress did.

Politician borrow from each other all the time. Who's to say that Huey wasn't pumping up the idea having stolen it from FDR?

The idea of Social Security was around long before either Long or FDR. The political climate of the day made it possible to get it enacted. That political climate was the result of the financial turmoil of the Great Depression, and the open political debate happening throughout the country, with input from many politicians, including Roosevelt and Long and hundreds of others.

Probably should look at Alf Landon with a critical eye. A guy could build something interesting for historical buffs with the info in your post.

reply to post by Misoir


lol in a way thats what privitization is the left aka democrats will never allow that to happen:

they cant steal from it and if the program is in your hands or mine from the beginning to end that means also can't give your money away to anyone else "more deserving".

they will fight tooth and nail to make sure the day of privitazation never comes think about about it if you dont need them you dont need all their beaucracy they have no right to exist and their power is severly diminished.

if i could invest my own money that i have paid in for decades that money would far exceed a government formula of how much i can get paid and that money doesn't need a cost of living adjustment every year and the thing is the longer i live the more it makes.

what would you rather have? a $2000 dollar check for the rest of your life? or a growing paychecking every month and every year?

and when people think of investing its a long term investment and it depends on what diversification you make i have had the arguement before on here and most people say americans are too stupid to invest and on some level they are but all i want is the public option to make my own financial future not what the feds say i can or can't do.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Misoir

 

FDR didn't 'enact' anything. Congress did.

The New Deal were programs designed by FDR and his staff. They were obviously signed and passed by the Congress first but he had the final say and it was his legislation really.

Politician borrow from each other all the time. Who's to say that Huey wasn't pumping up the idea having stolen it from FDR?

Social Security was an idea dating back far before either of these two men. The point I was trying to make in the OP was that Roosevelt was not enacting any more New Deal legislation after 1933/34 but it was only to steal the thunder from Long that he decided to actually enact Social Security.

The idea of Social Security was around long before either Long or FDR. The political climate of the day made it possible to get it enacted. That political climate was the result of the financial turmoil of the Great Depression, and the open political debate happening throughout the country, with input from many politicians, including Roosevelt and Long and hundreds of others.

Everyone who knows America political history knows that.

personally I think FDR was one of the worst presidents ever. First of all he's the only president to have FOUR, yes FOUR terms

He started the social security system which is now doomed to failure. He confiscated gold, he imposed food rationing, he almost had as long of a rein as Hitler (March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945 compared to Hitler JAN. 30, 1933 to April 30 1945, interestingly encompassing the same decades).

And of course he was in power during world war 2 and was at the helm when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Need I say more?

reply to post by filosophia


Wow I had no idea that he served 4 terms. Amazing.

reply to post by mayabong


to be historically accurate he was elected to 4 and died in his 4 term soon after term limits were imposed

which speaks to how great they thought fdr was at the time.

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by filosophia

 

Wow I had no idea that he served 4 terms. Amazing.

wikipedia:

The first 100 days produced the Farm Security Act to raise farm incomes by raising the prices farmers received, which was achieved by reducing total farm output.

The aim of the AAA was to raise prices for commodities through artificial scarcity.

So in other words, during the great depression, while people were standing in bread lines, FDR inacted artificial scarcity so farmers would make more money. I guess we now know why people went starving.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by filosophia

 

Wow I had no idea that he served 4 terms. Amazing.

wikipedia:

The first 100 days produced the Farm Security Act to raise farm incomes by raising the prices farmers received, which was achieved by reducing total farm output.

The aim of the AAA was to raise prices for commodities through artificial scarcity.

So in other words, during the great depression, while people were standing in bread lines, FDR inacted artificial scarcity so farmers would make more money. I guess we now know why people went starving.

And the new system is to eliminate the small farms and turn all crops into genetically modified foods dependent on corporate chemicals to grow.
FDR was amazing. And this Long guy was another assassinated victim of corporatism.

reply to post by RRokkyy


Without the force of law none of that would be possible.

Many of these corporations rely on government regulations to corner a market and form a monopoly.

Every monopoly today is enabled by the arbitrary application of regulatory law at the agency in charge. The system is rigged. And the problem is, that IS government growth. That's how it happens.

That's how our defense industry got so powerful, that's how Monsanto seeds wind up as our main food source, that's how Wal-Mart gets placed in certain neighborhoods where small businesses are operating and absorb the whole market share, including employees.

If Wal-Mart had to actually compete in a free-market it would have already gone out of business for offering crap.

Almost everything created for purchase in this country is made by the monopoly America helped create, the biggest monopoly of them all, CHINA.

Edit to add:

Fannie and Freddie are government created monopolies, they were created through the FHA a New Deal Era agency if I'm not mistaken. They own 95% of the mortgage market share, and if THEY had to actually compete rather than suck down tax payer money to stay alive they would have already gone out of business as well.

The New Deal created government monopolies that could only fail in a long enough span of time.

I don't think even FDR would have known that our politicians and many of our fellow citizens would be so stupid as to squander our future on obviously failed economic theory, but then again, FDR had the after math of WW2 to cover for his mistakes.

Will we have the luxury of having ANYTHING left after this?

reply to post by Misoir

The New Deal were programs designed by FDR and his staff. They were obviously signed and passed by the Congress first but he had the final say and it was his legislation really.

Your understanding of the American political system is appalling. Congress does not sign bills. The President does. The President can only sign what the Congress passes to him. Certainly, the President promoted Social Security, and participated in the negotiation as to what exactly would be in the bill. Exactly as every President has ever done when working on their agenda. That is what we pay them for.

Social Security was an idea dating back far before either of these two men. The point I was trying to make in the OP was that Roosevelt was not enacting any more New Deal legislation after 1933/34 but it was only to steal the thunder from Long that he decided to actually enact Social Security.

It happens that there were two phases to the New Deal, "the First New Deal" and "the Second New Deal". The Second New Deal took place after the mid-term elections when he obtained solid majorities in both houses. The works that came out of the Second New Deal included the Works Progress Administration, the Social Security Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. These are the unholy trinity (the WPA was canceled at the start of WWII), the foundations of the American Middle Class, that conservatives are fighting to bring down to this day.

It may be that Long's pressure helped push the political climate 'over the top' and made it possible to actually get Social Security passed. FDR could not get it done by himself, no matter how much fear or hatred or political rivalry he felt for Huey Long. The bill had to pass Congress in a form that was acceptable to FDR. If the people had not elected a Congress that would pass such a bill, then it would not have happened, FDR/Long rivalry or no FDR/Long rivalry. FDR didn't get that Congress until after the mid-term election of 1934.

Everyone who knows America political history knows that.

So why are you arguing Social Security is the result of nothing more than the supposed political rivalry between Roosevelt and Long? You are disregarding American political history, that you admit everyone knows, to invent a conspiracy out of nothing concrete.

It may very well be that Roosevelt had a desire to trump Long a potential rival in 1936, but to claim that that is the only reason why Roosevelt would support the bill is totally unsupportable. Besides, if Long was honestly supportive of Social Security, and I have no doubt that he was, he would have been the first one to praise those who made it happen.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Misoir

 

Your understanding of the American political system is appalling. Congress does not sign bills. The President does. The President can only sign what the Congress passes to him. Certainly, the President promoted Social Security, and participated in the negotiation as to what exactly would be in the bill. Exactly as every President has ever done when working on their agenda. That is what we pay them for.

The President signs the bill I know that. The Congress must draft the bills, debate about them, add/subtract amendments, pass them, then the president signs them. Obviously there is more to it but that is just the short explanation of it. Roosevelt and his team did create the New Deal but it was tweeked by Congress for it to pass.

It happens that there were two phases to the New Deal, "the First New Deal" and "the Second New Deal". The Second New Deal took place after the mid-term elections when he obtained solid majorities in both houses. The works that came out of the Second New Deal included the Works Progress Administration, the Social Security Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. These are the unholy trinity (the WPA was canceled at the start of WWII), the foundations of the American Middle Class, that conservatives are fighting to bring down to this day.

It may be that Long's pressure helped push the political climate 'over the top' and made it possible to actually get Social Security passed. FDR could not get it done by himself, no matter how much fear or hatred or political rivalry he felt for Huey Long. The bill had to pass Congress in a form that was acceptable to FDR. If the people had not elected a Congress that would pass such a bill, then it would not have happened, FDR/Long rivalry or no FDR/Long rivalry. FDR didn't get that Congress until after the mid-term election of 1934.

Many historians claim that Roosevelt was drifting towards the center in 1935 and his popularity was falling so he needed to steal the popularity from someone else, someone with very high popularity and that forced him left and motivated him to push for the enactment of the Second New Deal. Apparently he was giving up on these Social Programs.

So why are you arguing Social Security is the result of nothing more than the supposed political rivalry between Roosevelt and Long? You are disregarding American political history, that you admit everyone knows, to invent a conspiracy out of nothing concrete.

It may very well be that Roosevelt had a desire to trump Long a potential rival in 1936, but to claim that that is the only reason why Roosevelt would support the bill is totally unsupportable. Besides, if Long was honestly supportive of Social Security, and I have no doubt that he was, he would have been the first one to praise those who made it happen.

I am arguing the only reason Roosevelt was motivated to pass it was due to Huey Long's popularity, he needed to steal his thunder. What is not concrete about it? Roosevelt was moving to the center, his popularity was falling, he was unmotivated to pass more Social programs and he reacted by trying to reclaim his greatness by stealing the thunder from Huey Long. What this just means is that FDR was not truly interested in passing Social Security for the people but rather for his own political gain.

Well Long did die about 1 month after it was passed.

reply to post by Misoir

Many historians claim that Roosevelt was drifting towards the center in 1935 and his popularity was falling...

The only 'historians' making such a claim are those that don't know history and/or think their readers are too lazy and stupid to check it themselves.

I am arguing the only reason Roosevelt was motivated to pass it was due to Huey Long's popularity, he needed to steal his thunder. What is not concrete about it? Roosevelt was moving to the center, his popularity was falling,

Of course Roosevelt's popularity was falling after 2 years in office, every President's popularity does. That's why they lose ground in the midterm elections every time without fail, don't they? Oh... Wait...

Democrats earned an INCREASED majority in both houses after the mid-term election of 1934. Every President would love to lose popularity like that. Speculation does not trump cold hard facts, Roosevelt was more popular in 1934 than he was when elected. The 1934 mid-term election had the most number of 'serious' 3rd party candidates in history splitting the 'leftist' vote, and Democrats still gained 9 seats in both the House and in the Senate. There is no way on earth that result can be spun into 'Roosevelt was losing popularity', it is just patently ridiculous.

Roosevelt got a lot of legislation through Congress in the first 18 months of his term, indeed in the first 100 days. The WPA, Social Security, and the Labor Relations Act were not things written on the back of a napkin. You don't just snap your fingers and have these things pop up out of thin air, they take time. A President is elected for 4 years, does he need to get everything done in the first 18 months, then sit on his ass for the last two years of the term? Don't you think that someone savvy enough to get elected President of the US has a bit of a clue about priority and pacing?

The idea that Roosevelt perceived Huey Long as a political threat is perfectly reasonable. The idea that that was the only impetus for the creation of Social Security is mind-numbingly simplistic.

What is also reasonable is the idea that Roosevelt perceived Huey Long as a very useful whip to his less progressive collegues. All he would have to say to some reluctant Congressman was, "Look, if you don't deal with me, you might get stuck having to deal with Huey in a couple of years". Because if Roosevelt was considered 'left', Long was clearly quite radically left.