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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last
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]

To: Nachum
Now why would the average American think that social security is a legal obligation?

Perhaps it has something to do with legislators, politicians, bureaucrats and other governmental officials perpetuating a lie for the past 75 years, by using terms such as "trust fund", "contributions", Social Security retirement account and a host of other terminology intended to give the exact opposite impression.

Does anyone remember when Bush tried to privatize a portion of Social Security by letting people opt to put a portion of their "contribution" into a real retirement account. Remember all of the Democrats lining up to tell everyone their money was not safe, because of market fluctuations, in those private accounts, but it was safe in the Governments hands.

If you lie to people long enough, some people will naturally believe the lie!

61 posted on 09/14/2011 4:22:13 PM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BooBoo1000
And to think, this Idiot is in Congress, Have Mercy.

The man spoke the truth. If you genuinely do not know this then I know where you need to look to find the idiot. Try checking on your bathroom wall right over the sink.

62 posted on 09/14/2011 4:25:00 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Screw PONZI, sounds like indentured servitude to me. I’ve been working since I was 15. Started paying into this crapola when I was 18. I will never see a dime of my own money back and I never had a choice in the matter other than to leave my country. Sorry to all of you who could not get your generation to reign things in. Time has come and you now have no choice. I’m fine with losing what I put in; just leave me the F alone from here on out and let ME figure out how I’m going to make my own way...


63 posted on 09/14/2011 4:28:17 PM PDT by Michael Barnes (Obamaa+ Downgrade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Justa
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.

The purpose of those deliberately misleading "account" statements is to fool idiots into being more supportive of Social Security as a program and more dismissive of those who point out the program's serious and fundamental flaws. Apparently it works in some cases.

64 posted on 09/14/2011 4:30:08 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

But remember, is rude to call it a ponzi scheme.

Rude to Mr. Ponzi that is.


65 posted on 09/14/2011 4:30:18 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing an idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
Perhaps it has something to do with legislators, politicians, bureaucrats and other governmental officials perpetuating a lie for the past 75 years, by using terms such as "trust fund", "contributions", Social Security retirement account and a host of other terminology intended to give the exact opposite impression.

The US Federal Code and Supreme Court decisions have been online since 1996. Before that you could write your congressman and he would send you a copy of sections for free.

Don't people who are expecting to have hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to them have just a wee, tiny bit of an obligation to find out the law themselves? You know, read the prospectus if you will?

66 posted on 09/14/2011 4:33:22 PM PDT by triumphant values
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Don’t give this POS any credit for anything other than knowing when to get his rodent self off the O-Boat before it goes down. This man is a cross between a Nazi and a fruitcake and his mouth has brought shame upon our great State[Tn.] several times in the past. I phart in his general direction.


67 posted on 09/14/2011 4:35:46 PM PDT by WePledge (Ich werde fur immer ein Hollenhund werden. Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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

No, because there is no contractual obligation to pay. No contract, no "full faith and credit" implications. The government is no more obligated to continue to pay Social Security than it is to pay welfare. All they have to do is pass a law repealing it.

68 posted on 09/14/2011 4:38:43 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

When you get to 70 they can’t count any other income to lower the payments. All this can change any time, though.


69 posted on 09/14/2011 4:41:41 PM PDT by Bookwoman ("...and I am unanimous in this...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice

Another thing people need to realize is those that pay in the most to SS subsidize the low wage earners SS benefits. It is not a get out what you put in program.


70 posted on 09/14/2011 4:42:40 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

[eliminating some government departments and all will be well.]

Personally, I am for eliminating the federal government and returning states rights to previos stolen levels so every state would stand or fall according to the people who elect the right or evil left politicians.


71 posted on 09/14/2011 4:45:30 PM PDT by kindred ( Third party conservatism is on the rise, God bless the conservative tea party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: therut
You wanna see the a**holes in Washington go into full panic mode? Do not send them any money. How about a taxpayers strike? The a**holes in DC are going to incarcerate the 52 percent that PAY taxes? Then what? The political class has to actually produce a real product or service? i don't think so. Zero money for Zero's gubmint.
72 posted on 09/14/2011 4:49:23 PM PDT by MasterGunner01 (To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- SEAL Team SIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

Ahh, so the government providing specific and detailed information of what I’ve paid in and what will be paid out is really a conspiracy to mislead and fool me into being supportive of the social security tax? Who knew, it needs my support? Wow, I’m impressed.

...Because all SS taxes are voluntary...

...And no one receives repayment of their contributions.

And now this ASSHAT and you are in agreement that the government isn’t obligated to make those payments? No thanks. Why don’t you go focus your laser-like intellect on all the fraudulent SSI payouts first asshat!


73 posted on 09/14/2011 4:51:27 PM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

If a Democrat tells the truth, does he get struck by lightning?


74 posted on 09/14/2011 5:00:00 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justa

While you are busy being smarmy and calling people names, other people besides you are filling this thread with facts and logic regarding Social Security, all of which refute the position you have taken.

Everything that you have posted on this thread is ignorant, stupid and illogical. If you ever wonder how it is that the U.S. Government has gotten away with running a Ponzi scheme on the American people for seventy years, look no further than your own posts here for your answer.


75 posted on 09/14/2011 5:00:25 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: DarrellZero
People need to understand this. The members of my generation will likely never see a dime of SS.

I think Social Security will be perserved "no matter what". What I worry about are the consequences of "no matter what" which I believe will be endless series of tax increases. Once an entitlement is entrenched it is extremely hard to get rid of it. This country will just go down like a slow boiled frog.

76 posted on 09/14/2011 5:06:43 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bookwoman
When you get to 70 they can’t count any other income to lower the payments. All this can change any time, though.

That's not what I'm talking about. They pay a higher monthly rate. Incrementally they raise the payment several percent between 66 and 70 over the full benefit rate. It's a game they are playing giving you an incentive to wait thereby paying out for four less years. Check your social security plan.

77 posted on 09/14/2011 5:07:12 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY SOME OF US YOUNGER VOTERS WANTED TO PRIVATIZE A PORTION OF OUR ACCOUNT!! BUT JERKS LIKE THIS WERE TELLING US IT’S TOO RISKY. SURE LOOKS LIKE I GOT A GUARANTEED LOSER INSTEAD OF A HIGH RISK!!!


78 posted on 09/14/2011 5:12:52 PM PDT by CommieCutter (Promote Liberal Extinction: Support gay marriage and abortion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Jump on board gang. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID TOO WE MILITARY RETIREES!! It was only PROMISES that were made too us by RECRUITERS who did not have the authority to make those promises, EVEN THOUGH the entire US Congress, DOD, and everyone involved KNEW that the recruiters were telling all of us this is what we got for 20 or more years of service. They participated in the FRAUD on us until it got to where they simply did not want to pay us anymore, thus started cutting our throats long after we are all retired and there is not one danged thing we can do about it. Welcome aboard the rest of you to the fraud that they played on us all those years. Now, we also get to have this fraud on us also. Ain’t America great. The very people who are going to cut your throats, the US Congress, DOES NOT EVEN PARTICIPATE IN THE FRAUD PROGRAM. They have FULLY FUNDED their little retirement scheme.


79 posted on 09/14/2011 5:19:57 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY mouth shall say: Jesus Christ IS LORD!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

His district is Davidson County/Metro Nashville. He's safe as long as he keeps a D after his name.

80 posted on 09/14/2011 5:21:03 PM PDT by Tonytitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CommieCutter

I’d also like to know how it works when people immigrate here, legally or not, and somehow end up on the social security and/or Medicaid roles?

I can’t tell you how many foreign patients I see in our hospital. I ask them how long they’ve been there — most will say 15 years or less ...however, they are on FULL Medicare/medicaid and social security.

So how does that work? What exactly is THAT doing to the budget?


81 posted on 09/14/2011 5:23:20 PM PDT by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: 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."

Then why does the government send out paper which says that it is an account and shows the contents thereof (i.e. a statement)?

Perhaps we should heed the observation that was made in antiquity [by Aristotle, IIRC] that shifting definitions are indicative of an immoral intellectual dishonesty.

82 posted on 09/14/2011 5:28:33 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
Millions in the private sector literally live off SS, what the government confiscated from them over the course of their work histories...

They live today off of what the government confiscates from today's workers. What was confiscated from them through the years paid recipients through the years.

They're not getting back what was taken from them. What was taken from them was spent when it was taken. Classic Ponzi scheme.

83 posted on 09/14/2011 5:30:46 PM PDT by Tonytitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
You are correct as the laws are written now.

The previous poster was only correct on the second assumption, you will get SS payments according to the current regulations. And you are right, Congress can change the payment schedules anytime they want, including setting them to zero.

The first statement, that what you paid in created an obligation on the part of the government to pay you back, is false. It's also the assumption that the hardest for folks to give up.

84 posted on 09/14/2011 5:31:07 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska; TomGuy

>The government legally owes you {and me } nothing.

Not true, Art 4, Sec 4, of the US Constitution clearly obliges the federal government to protect the Several States against invasion.
{But they *don’t* want to do that; re: AZ’s sb1070[?].}


85 posted on 09/14/2011 5:32:56 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Nachum.
Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)...
See, he's a conservative. /s Matt Cover's 'blog has some other stuff of interest, looks like he's probably a Perry supporter.


86 posted on 09/14/2011 5:54:06 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: triumphant values

Truth.


87 posted on 09/14/2011 5:54:14 PM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: triumphant values
Don't people who are expecting to have hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to them have just a wee, tiny bit of an obligation to find out the law themselves? You know, read the prospectus if you will?

Perhaps, but how does that absolve the liars?

If a private citizen made the same type of statments about a the same type of program, he would be guilty of fraud.

88 posted on 09/14/2011 5:59:24 PM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: CommieCutter

I’m 59.
I propose that Social Security be phased out over a generation’s time. Step 1 would be to freeze current benefits to those on the receiving end now and end cost of living increases. Step 2 would be to redefine beneficiaries to only those who have paid into the system, eliminating 25% of the benefit amount over a four year period to those who don’t belong. Step 3 would be to offer a one-time cash incentive buyout to those who are within ten years of being eligible to receive benefits including a provision that they will never have social security taxes taken from their checks again as long as they live. This would lower the long-term obligations being faced by those of you in the younger generations and allow more of your money to go toward your own private retirement accounts that you would own. Step 4 would be to redefine benefit levels for those who fail to accept the buyout offer. They have a choice, the buyout or whatever results from the redefinition committee. Those who are between ten and twenty years away from receiving benefits will have their social security taxes lowered a little to help them cope with the redefined benefit levels they will receive. Anyone more than twenty years away from being eligible to receive benefits will not be able to collect anything from social security. Their social security taxes will be decreased as current recipients die off over time until one day it’s simply over and done with.

This approach has everyone giving a little and getting something positive in return. It’s the only way to get full buy-in.


89 posted on 09/14/2011 6:02:57 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

What he’s REALLY saying is that there’ll be NO SS check for YOU Granny unless you pull the (D) lever good and hard...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79013,00.html


90 posted on 09/14/2011 6:03:36 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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."

So, does that mean that citizens have no obligation to pay into social security, though it is taken out of our paychecks before we even see them? Good for the goose, after all.

91 posted on 09/14/2011 6:05:56 PM PDT by ronnyquest (I spent 20 years in the Army fighting the enemies of freedom only to see fascism elected at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Then why does the government send out paper which says that it is an account and shows the contents thereof (i.e. a statement)?

They do this to mislead you. Plain and simple.

92 posted on 09/14/2011 6:07:19 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

To paraphrase Patrick Henry, there will never be a law against bad laws.

The complete quote is, “They may go without punishment though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask: By what law? They must make the law, for there is no existing law to do it. What, will they make a law to punish themselves?”


93 posted on 09/14/2011 6:10:23 PM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Tonytitan
What was confiscated from them through the years paid recipients through the years.

That is only part of the story. If fact the withholdings produced surpluses continuously up until 2009. Those surplus revenues were then spent on other items in the budget having nothing to do with Social Security.

94 posted on 09/14/2011 6:10:44 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

“In fact” not “If fact”.


95 posted on 09/14/2011 6:14:38 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I don’t see where we could get the cash for a buyout without taxing it, borrowing it or printing it.


96 posted on 09/14/2011 6:17:04 PM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

It was also never intended for the young, illegal or complete corrupt system to be spent at will.


97 posted on 09/14/2011 6:27:40 PM PDT by The Mayor ("If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat" — Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

If the Republican Party was not playing bad cop-good cop with the Democrat Party, the Republicans would be running ads on this guy’s statement tomorrow.


98 posted on 09/14/2011 6:44:43 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

If the Republican Party was not playing bad cop-good cop with the Democrat Party, the Republicans would be running ads on this guy’s statement tomorrow.


99 posted on 09/14/2011 6:44:50 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

>>Then why does the government send out paper which says that it is an account and shows the contents thereof (i.e. a statement)?
>
>They do this to mislead you. Plain and simple.

True. And perhaps there should be a [/dry] tag or somesuch, as it wasn’t really sarcasm...

I am coming to think that much of what the Government does is done to mislead... for the purposes of controlling you.

Consider the Constitution and how much of it is ignored until, in some way, it benefits the Government. {This is, I think, the major driving force behind the judiciary’s love of precedent.}
And, have you ever asked an “law enforcement” officer why certain things which are contrary to the Constitution are allowed? Listen carefully to how much they bullshit.

(A good example for me in NM was Asking the sheriff why there was a state law prohibiting firearms on College campuses when the State Constitution clearly says “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense [...]”)


100 posted on 09/14/2011 6:57:31 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 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