Democrat: Gov't Has No Contractual Obligation to Pay Social Security Benefits

Cybercast News Service ^ | 9/14/11 | Matt Cover

[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.

[MetaThought]

Sounds like a ... wait for it ... PONZI scheme. however saying out loud is contraindicated if you’re running for office.

[Repeal The 17th]

He is correct; it is rare to hear a democrat tell the truth.

[xkaydet65]

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.

[DarrellZero]

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.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Fine I opt to not pay SS Tax any longer. : )

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Fine I opt to not pay SS Tax any longer. : )

[ari-freedom]

if it was legally binding, we would be instantly broke

[oneamericanvoice]

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?

[TomGuy]

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.

[Chode]

in other words... It's just ANOTHER TAX then!!!

[rabscuttle385]

I strongly suggest that the Congressman is in error.

The Congress critter is not.

I suggest you read up on Fleming v. Nestor.

[beelzepug]

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!!

[CORedneck]

Social Security should be phased out.

[Ronin]

Something in the back of my mind tells me this guy is going to regret saying this.

[Lady Lucky]

The law giveth and the law taketh away.

[ml/nj]

And the same is true for any government pension, federal and local.

ML/NJ

[ExTxMarine]

Oh, and while we’re at it, maybe we, the taxpayers, can decide which Congress critter’s salary and benefits we pay for.

The Dems just passed legislation that gives corporate employees MORE direct input into the amount of pay and benefits that the management/CEO/board can make.

What do you bet they would NOT vote to give us, the American taxpaying employees, the same rights about their pay and benefits!

[bert]

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.

[KarlInOhio]

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.

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.