in other words... It's just ANOTHER TAX then!!!
Posted on 09/14/2011 2:38:29 PM PDT by Nachum
Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said that most Americans do not understand that federal entitlements are not “bank account” programs that hold their money, adding that Social Security is not even a legal guarantee -- "Legally, they're not even promises." Cooper, asked about potential reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, said that the core problem was that the public does not understand the true nature of entitlements. “Many Americans don’t really realize that Medicare is a government program,” Cooper said at a press conference with fellow Blue Dogs on Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Sounds like a ... wait for it ... PONZI scheme. however saying out loud is contraindicated if you’re running for office.
He is correct; it is rare to hear a democrat tell the truth.
He’s 100% correct. Soc Security is a law.It’s been changed over the years,for increased benefits, and ret ages have also been raised. Any Congress and POTUS can end SS with one enactment and signature.
It’s true. The government has successfully argued as much before the Supreme Court.
Social Security is nothing but another tax. There is no constitutional obligation on the government’s part to pay you anything.
People need to understand this. The members of my generation will likely never see a dime of SS.
Fine I opt to not pay SS Tax any longer. : )
Fine I opt to not pay SS Tax any longer. : )
if it was legally binding, we would be instantly broke
Well then, if the government doesn’t have to pay benefits, then I don’t have to pay into SS. Sure would give me extra money in my pocket. The other thing that sticks in my craw is that we have to wait til 65 to ALL of OUR MONEY. If you apply at 62 you only get 75%. What part of MY MONEY aren’t they clear on? Oh, and while we’re at it, maybe we, the taxpayers, can decide which Congress critter’s salary and benefits we pay for. Some of the Democrat staffers don’t like to take my call if I’m from out of their boss’ district. Well, then why am I paying for him or her?
I strongly suggest that the Congressman is in error.
Since SS and Medicare have mandatory amounts deducted from wages, that obligates the Government agency to the provisions of the social security and medicare statutes.
I doubt any of the provisions have a rider or provision that exempts the US Government from paying out those benefits when an individual meets the requirements.
in other words... It's just ANOTHER TAX then!!!
The Congress critter is not.
I suggest you read up on Fleming v. Nestor.
It’s gonna take an awful lot of stout rope to rectify this situation. Steal money from both me and my employers for the last fifty years and then tell me they have no obligation to pay me back?
Have the lumber and nails delivered down there on the mall. We’re having a party!!
Social Security should be phased out.
Something in the back of my mind tells me this guy is going to regret saying this.
The law giveth and the law taketh away.
ML/NJ
The act of a president declaring he is not going to pay SS benefits as defined by the current law, is equivalent to declareing his own death warrant.
I doubt any of the provisions have a rider or provision that exempts the US Government from paying out those benefits when an individual meets the requirements.
You are correct as the laws are written now. But laws change. Congress could propose a law today stating: "The Social Security Act and all of its amendments are hereby repealsed." 218 Representatives, 51 Senators and the President could vote for it or sign it respectively and tomorrow there would be no more Social Security. Look up Flemming v. Nestor (1960) and you can see the Supreme Court ruling that Social Security is not a contract and no one has any vested interest in future benefits.
repealsed -> repealed
I strongly suggest that you know not what about which you suggest.
The government legally owes you {and me } nothing.
The congress can pass, and the President can sign a law that ends social security today.
We could sue and scream and revolt, but the feds would owe you nothing.
Wait...is this guy a racist teabagger terrorist?!?!?!
Only those people would say something like that!!!
FICA is a tax. Like ALL taxes to the feds, it goes into one revenue pool and is spent through Congressional appropriations and as the President sees fit.
There is no SocSec lock box. SocSec is not a right that can not be found in the Constitution. The govt owes you nothing.
No. You have to be 66 to get the max you are “entitled” to.
Millions in the private sector literally live off SS, what the government confiscated from them over the course of their work histories...
This happens and I suggest the politicians campaign in armored cars, substantially beef up their security and consider walling off D.C.
Actually it keeps going up to age 70.
66 is called the “Full Retirement Age” for boomer age folks.
bkmk
And to think, this Idiot is in Congress, Have Mercy..
Government does have a legal obligation to comply with the laws it has passed, SS being among those. Of course it can change laws, but until it does it is obligated to comply.
Contract has a very specific legal meaning. Not sure what this clown thinks he’s accomplished by speaking about SS in terms of contracts. Government does enter some contracts, but it’s not contractually obligated to carry on any of its basic functions. It’s not contractually obligated to maintain an armed forces, and the armed forces have varied greatly in size over the history of the US.
I've had this conversation with a number of people in foreign countries who claim that American workers are taxed so minimally, we have nothing to complain about. When I mentioned that in addition to the federal, state, and local income taxes, we pay an additional 15% into FICA and Medicare, they all claimed, "well that doesn't count, because that's your retirement account."
No matter what I said, they refused to believe that this was nothing more than an additional tax going directly into the general fund, to be spent by the government, and there wasn't a penny with my name on it.
Unfortunately, too many Americans believe that too. I've been paying into this scam for 36 years now, and I don't believe that I'll ever see a penny of it back.
Mark
Technical question: how do you change the fonts in your posts.
Cooper has been a boil on our states butt for way too many years.
There is talk the state legislature is going to chop up his safe district.
He’s about as “Blue Dog” as Blues Clues and couldn’t find his brain if he shot himself in the head.
ELIMINATE THE SEPARATE WITHHOLDING.
I wonder if Warren Buffet collects Social Security - now that would make some headlines.
i expect to get zilch also...
Ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, chain letter, whatever. It’s legalized theft.
** ... lumber and nails delivered down there on the mall. We’re having a party!!**
Will we need lots of ROPE or just LONG NAILS??
They're criminals.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
at least one demonrat has come to the realization the gubmint cannot do everything for every one .especially when it’s broke.
Funny, but I don’t recall any other tax which tracks my contributions and sends me a yearly account total of what I’ve paid into it and what I’m eligible to withdraw.
How anyone (read Troll) can think it’s a just another tax, subject to crony, government discretionary spending, is beyond comprehension.
In simpler terms: GET OUTTA HERE!
If you wait until 70, you get a bigger check.
Uh, no, that is not what it means at all.
You're not eligible to withdraw ANYTHING. If you don't believe that, send the SS Admin a request for a refund.
If you live long enough, the government MAY at its discretion, send you payments, subject to the whims of Congress.
Because it is and has been since the beginning and there were three Supreme Court cases that held this to be the case.
In 1935 the Democrats rightfully feared that a separate pension system would be ruled an unconstitutional use of federal government power by the Supreme Court(because it would be). So they set it up as a use of Congress' income taxing power and paid the draws out of the US Treasury account.
The point is that the government can and does change the payout provisions in the statutes whenever it wants. You pay in according to what the statutes require at the time you are working and then you collect according to what the statutes say at the time you are eligible for benefits. However that changes over the course of your working life is up to Congress. You have no legal right to collect anything. If Congress simply eliminates the program and declares that henceforth no one collects anything then that will be what you get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.