Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrat: Gov't Has No Contractual Obligation to Pay Social Security Benefits
Cybercast News Service ^ | 9/14/11 | Matt Cover

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; contractual; democrat; democrats; entitlements; entitlementsponzi; fdrtoldscotusssatax; future75percentss; govt; imoldgimmegimmegimme; jimcooper; liberalfascism; medicare; obligation; pansyscheme; perry; ponzi; ponzientitlements; ponzischeme; seniors4fascism; seniors4socialism; seniors4tyranny; socialism; socialistmedicine; socialsecurity; soldasinsurance; tennessee; welfare4seniors
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last
To: Rumplemeyer
Put in front of the area you want bigger. Or a "-#" to make it smaller. Replace the "#" with amount you want to be bigger or smaller. Use to end those changes.
41 posted on 09/14/2011 3:41:08 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Then they just stoled my money!

They're criminals.

42 posted on 09/14/2011 3:41:47 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (Rabid democRATS and 0bama the dictator own it all now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarrellZero

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.


43 posted on 09/14/2011 3:43:06 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (See ya later, debt inflator ! Gone in 4 (2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chode

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!


44 posted on 09/14/2011 3:55:04 PM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bookwoman
No. You have to be 66 to get the max you are “entitled” to.

If you wait until 70, you get a bigger check.

45 posted on 09/14/2011 4:01:42 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I think we'd actually get a more honest politician from this guy


46 posted on 09/14/2011 4:04:01 PM PDT by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice
Well then, if the government doesn’t have to pay benefits, then I don’t have to pay into SS.

Uh, no, that is not what it means at all.

47 posted on 09/14/2011 4:05:35 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Justa
what I’m eligible to withdraw.

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.

48 posted on 09/14/2011 4:06:38 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Justa
How anyone (read Troll) can think it’s a just another tax, subject to crony, government discretionary spending, is beyond comprehension.

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.

49 posted on 09/14/2011 4:09:01 PM PDT by triumphant values
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
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.

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.

50 posted on 09/14/2011 4:11:22 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Fleming v. Nestor


51 posted on 09/14/2011 4:11:47 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

SCOTUS ruled on this in Flemming v. Nestor


52 posted on 09/14/2011 4:11:47 PM PDT by stylin19a (obama..."Fredo-Smart")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
SS/Medicare makes a good scare-tactic weapon that has been used in elections for the last 4 decades.

4 decades ago there weren't 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and there weren't 10,000 baby boomers becoming eligible for SS/Medicare every single day for the next 15 years.

53 posted on 09/14/2011 4:12:34 PM PDT by triumphant values
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
He is correct; it is rare to hear a democrat tell the truth.

He must be planning on pulling some sort of trick and is only telling the truth in order to confuse us!

54 posted on 09/14/2011 4:13:02 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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

You do not have the legal right to opt out of paying this tax.

55 posted on 09/14/2011 4:14:47 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Yes indeed and some generation is going to find that out!


56 posted on 09/14/2011 4:15:16 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
You've gotta wonder how people can have been members of FR for ten years and not know how SS works and not realize just how dire the financial situation of this country is because of that and Medicare.

They think a few welfare cuts, and eliminating some government departments and all will be well. They can't grasp that in a short time if payments continue as they are, the government could completely eliminate all of itself except for a SS/Medicare check mailing facility and still run a deficit.

57 posted on 09/14/2011 4:17:25 PM PDT by triumphant values
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: shield
Then stop taking money out of paychecks for a non contractual program.

Good idea. End it don't mend it. Phase it out and replace it with private savings accounts. Just like GWB said in 2004.

58 posted on 09/14/2011 4:17:30 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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

guess ya didn't read the title of the article did ya...

59 posted on 09/14/2011 4:17:30 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
That would abrogate the 'full faith and credit' of the US Government.

"Full faith and credit" refers to actual debts such as U.S. Treasury Bonds. As the 'Rat Congressman has helpfully pointed out, Social Security benefits simply are not debts that must be paid.

60 posted on 09/14/2011 4:20:50 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson