Posted on 05/03/2016 10:59:54 AM PDT by AuntB
TED CRUZ just screwed YOU out of your Social Security income...at least he did for me! I was getting widow benefits...but no more! Obama was happy to sign it!
[snip]Politicians describe Social Security as "the third rail," meaning that enacting any benefit cuts will kill them politically. But this is precisely what they voted to do under the Bipartisan Budget Bill of 2015. Spouses as well as divorced spouses (who were married for 10 or more years) who reached 62 by Jan. 2 can still collect just their spousal or divorced spousal benefit between 66 and 70 and then take their own retirement benefit at 70. (there are many other cuts as well!)
TED CRUZ VOTED FOR THIS Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Rand Paul voted against it. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), also voted Nay
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/social-security-why-congress-is-messing-with-your-benefits-commentary.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?&congress=114&session=1&vote=00193
The following material, borrowed from a related thread, argues why Social Security is unconstitutional.
. . . . . .
Unconstitutional federal social spending went into high gear when state sovereignty-ignoring FDR was president. This is because FDRs thug justices wrongly ignored that the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1), which the 74th Congress used to justify programs like Social Security, was not intended to be a delegation of specific power to Congress. This observation concerning the GWC is evidenced by the excerpt from the writings of James Madison below, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.
The excerpt below is actually from the constitutionally required veto explanation (1.7.2) which Madison wrote to the House of Representatives (House) when the 14th Congress tried to use the GWC to justify its federal public works bill of 1817.
In his veto letter Madison explained that the GWC is not a delegation of specific power to Congress, but only an introductory clause for the clauses which follow it in Section 8 which are specific delegations of power.
”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” - Veto of federal public works bill, 1817
The post-17th Amendment ratification 74th Congress made the same mistake with the GWC when it used that clause as its excuse to establish Social Security (SS), the 111th Congress likewise walking in the misguided footsteps of the 14th and 74th Congress when it established unconstitutional Obamacare.
And not only did FDRs activist justices ignore Madisons clarification of the GWC when it declared Social Security to be constitutional in Helvering v. Davis, but post-FDR era, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices likewise wrongly gave the green light to unconstitutional Obamacare.
Finally, note that if the legal majority voters of a given state want a government retirement programs like SS, then there is nothing stopping voters from working with their state lawmakers to establish such a program with the states’s 10th Amendment-protected powers.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach as evidenced by unconstitutional, vote-winning federal social spending programs like Social Security and Obamacare .
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Not defending Cruz here but no bills are passed in congress by one senator.
I should also be said that it has been a well-known fact that SS was destine to fail. I knew that SS would not be there for me when I started working 33 years ago. Knowing that I planned for retirement without SS. I got in to the company 401K as soon as I was able.
Anyone who wasn’t expecting moves like this was not paying attention.
Bush II warned that SS was in trouble and tried to reform SS in the first few months of his administration and could not get any support in congress.
SS has been broke for months and has been cashing in its fictitious Trust fund bonds to pay benefits. In other words SS is being paid out of the general fund. Putting it another way the Federal Government is borrowing money from China to pay SS recipients.
Face it folks the US government is BROKE and something has to be done about entitlements.
There will be millions of us cut off. On my ss, I would get maybe $700 a month. They figure it over a 35 year period, some of which I was in the hospital or couldn’t walk. I was ill and taking care of ill parents, sick grandkids for the last 10 years they figured into that and I will get less than an illegal alien senior in California. I worked for 45 years, starting at 12 and have NEVER taken a dime of ‘welfare’. I’ll die before I do. My husband never got a cent of his ss money. Now, I won’t either.
BUT, if I were an elderly ILLEGAL ALIEN in California, I could get over a thousand $$ a month! (you can see that here.....http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=why+is+california+broke)
I'm having serious computer problems all of a sudden! Signing off. B.
Senator Cruz voted with the vast majority of Republican Senators and against the vast majority of Democrat Senators.
Is there supposed to be something unusual about that?
“Not defending Cruz here but no bills are passed in congress by one senator. “
No $#!T!
WHY did he vote for it...it’s a DOG....Jeff Sessions agrees!
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/29/jeff-sessions-attacks-budget-deal-bricks-truth/
No one in D.C. is ever responsible for anything according to some folks.
plain talk wrote: “That’s right. It gets rid of some of the tricks people would play. Most people don’t even know about them. Financial planners are always touting them. Has no impact on most people.”
And, like a lot of tricks financial planners tout, they don’t always work out. Like deferring social security until age 70 to get a higher benefit which only works out if you live a very long time. Otherwise, you lose.
If your husband passed away and you have reached full retirement age you are eligible for 100% of your husband’s benefit.
Exactly. The actuaries are not morons.
Hum. My mom is 94. My dad’s SS death benefit is all she has, which is less than 1000 a month. I think on her own she was making something like $200 a month. I wonder if this applies to her.
Would you mind telling me why a couple who have both worked for 50 years should receive the same benefit as a couple where only one spouse worked 50 years.
No.
At age 60 you could start collecting survivor benefits, however the amount would be reduced by about 25%. If you waited until 66 you should get 100% of your deceased husband's benefit. Some info here: https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/ifyou5.html
Oops, I see my question was answered above, sorry.
Interesting how you call a widow, whose combined earnings with her spouse were confiscated by Social Security for the entire duration of their marriage, ‘double dipping’ when they are able to get paid back some of their own money.
The married couple has their income confiscated jointly. They file taxes jointly. When the time comes they should continue to be treated as a joint partnership and recoup the money that was taken from them, as a partnership.
This law change is crap. Both you paid in, and you should get it all back!
The impact will be worse for today’s younger couples earning balanced incomes.
A working married couple pays twice as much to FICA and Medicare as a couple with one working spouse. Correct?
Really aunt B? Trump keep a promise about anything? That would be a first in his illustrious career.
Better question would be when someone dies just before they’re eligible to file, where does all their money go which was confiscated from them for decades?
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.