SCOTUS: Social Security Benefits Can Be ELIMINATED At Any Time

[Contumacious]

The initial issue presented by this case is the appropriate standard of judicial review to be applied when social and economic legislation enacted by Congress is challenged as being violative of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is no claim here that Congress has taken property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, since railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 575 (1979); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 608-611 (1960). And because the distinctions drawn in § 231b (h) do not burden fundamental constitutional rights or create "suspect" classifications, such as race or national origin, we may put cases involving judicial review of such claims to one side. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979)."


UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. FRITZ,
101 S. Ct. 453, 449 U.S. 166 (U.S. 12/09/1980)

.

.

 

[Glensather]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

You won’t be screwing over just old people, you’ll be screwing over middle and low income workers, as well as people in their 40s and 50s for whom SS will be their only income once retired, as many lost all their savings, a consequence of the recession.

 

[Lakhota]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

How does Social Security "build debt"...? It currently has a $2.7 TRILLION surplus and doesn't cost the government one penny - except the interest that Uncle Sam pays on the borrow funds.

Trust Fund FAQs

 

[Charles_Main]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

The Problem is not Social Security. It's SSD, Social Security Disability for the most part. If the SS system were still just people who paid in all their life, then collected there would be no problem. The problem is now the system is loaded down with people who never worked, and never paid in, or didn't work very long.

SS was never meant to be that. it was meant to be a retirement guarantee for workers, not straight welfare for the poor, and disabled.

Not to suggest the Poor, and Disabled don't need help. But it is not fair to threaten to end the Benefits of workers who paid in with good faith their whole lives, because the System has changed into more welfare and less of a Pay as you go retirement guarantee, and the fucking cock sucking, Dirt bag Politicians could not keep their fucking hands out of the cookie jar and had to go and Rape the Trust fund.

and you libs wonder why some of us don't like the idea of the Government overseeing massive Welfare programs. They can not be trusted. The things always cost exponentially more than they tell us they will, and the Benefits are never as good as they say they will be, and clearly any promise that they will manage a fund and not fucking rape it, is worthless.

 

[Charles_Main]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

How does Social Security "build debt"...? It currently has a $2.7 TRILLION surplus and doesn't cost the government one penny - except the interest that Uncle Sam pays on the borrow funds.

Trust Fund FAQs

So where is the 2.7 Trillion sitting asshat? Why are we not collecting butt loads of interest on it? Because it's nothing buy fucking IOU's from the Fed. They spent the fucking money.

 

[Lakhota]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

The Problem is not Social Security. It's SSD, Social Security Disability for the most part. If the SS system were still just people who paid in all their life, then collected there would be no problem. The problem is now the system is loaded down with people who never worked, and never paid in, or didn't work very long.

SS was never meant to be that. it was meant to be a retirement guarantee for workers, not straight welfare for the poor, and disabled.

We finally agree on something. There is much truth in your words.

 

[MeBelle]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

How does Social Security "build debt"...? It currently has a $2.7 TRILLION surplus and doesn't cost the government one penny - except the interest that Uncle Sam pays on the borrow funds.

Trust Fund FAQs

So where is the 2.7 Trillion sitting asshat? Why are we not collecting butt loads of interest on it? Because it's nothing buy fucking IOU's from the Fed. They spent the fucking money.

More money was printed!
The lock box is hidden under Harrry Reid's chair.

 

[Glensather]

The Problem is not Social Security. It's SSD, Social Security Disability for the most part. If the SS system were still just people who paid in all their life, then collected there would be no problem. The problem is now the system is loaded down with people who never worked, and never paid in, or didn't work very long.

I stand corrected . I guess its hard to tell the difference.

SS was never meant to be that. it was meant to be a retirement guarantee for workers, not straight welfare for the poor, and disabled.

Not to suggest the Poor, and Disabled don't need help. But it is not fair to threaten to end the Benefits of workers who paid in with good faith their whole lives, because the System has changed into more welfare and less of a Pay as you go retirement guarantee, and the fucking cock sucking, Dirt bag Politicians could not keep their fucking hands out of the cookie jar and had to go and Rape the Trust fund.

and you libs wonder why some of us don't like the idea of the Government overseeing massive Welfare programs. They can not be trusted. The things always cost exponentially more than they tell us they will, and the Benefits are never as good as they say they will be, and clearly any promise that they will manage a fund and not fucking rape it, is worthless.

I'm going to take that a step further and not just blame liberals for the siphoning of Social Security. I mean, conservatives were there too, right? And that much money, just sitting there waiting for the people who paid into it to need it?

Yeah. It's one of my biggest problems with government at large. Every time a good thing comes along they have to bend it over the Senate and rape it.

 

[The Professor]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

How does Social Security "build debt"...? It currently has a $2.7 TRILLION surplus and doesn't cost the government one penny - except the interest that Uncle Sam pays on the borrow funds.

Trust Fund FAQs

There is no surplus in actual cash, only in government backed securities (IOUs).

Back in July of 2011, the Obama Administration warned that if a budget deal were not struck by August 2, seniors may not get their Social Security checks because there was not enough money in the coffers. Of course, if there were real assets in the “Trust Fund” there would be no problem making Social Security payments. Here is a link which explains it all fairly well.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? - Forbes

 

[Lakhota]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

How does Social Security "build debt"...? It currently has a $2.7 TRILLION surplus and doesn't cost the government one penny - except the interest that Uncle Sam pays on the borrow funds.

Trust Fund FAQs

So where is the 2.7 Trillion sitting asshat? Why are we not collecting butt loads of interest on it? Because it's nothing buy fucking IOU's from the Fed. They spent the fucking money.

Are you really that dumb? Those IOUs are similar to what China is holding. Social Security is the largest holder of U.S. debt. Reading is your friend...

Trust Fund FAQs

Who are America's Creditors? or, Debt Economics for Beginners

What we all need to understand about Social Security

 

[Lakhota]

$2.5 trillion in Social Security bonds stored in filing cabinet in downtown Parkersburg, W.Va.

---- Sunday, March 14, 2010 10:45 AM

In this Feb. 23, 2005 file photo, Susan Chapman, director of the Division of Federal Investments, sorts through paper securities pulled from a file at the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt offices in Parkersburg, W.Va. while President George W. Bush examines the file's contents.

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. (AP) -- The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration....

What we all need to understand about Social Security

$2.5 trillion in Social Security bonds stored in filing cabinet in downtown Parkersburg, W.Va. | The Columbus Dispatch

 

[Staidhup]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

How does Social Security "build debt"...? It currently has a $2.7 TRILLION surplus and doesn't cost the government one penny - except the interest that Uncle Sam pays on the borrow funds.

Trust Fund FAQs

Well, here is an interesting set of facts you should consider. 41 million people are currently receiving Social Security benefits today, Social Security obligations are increasing at $40 billion a year, within the next 6-8 years 81 million people will be receiving benefits, the number of people paying into Social security is increasing at a slower rate than those that are retiring, whoops! The projected social security deficit will exceed $400 billion by 2020. Social Security is nothing more than a government sponsored ponzi scheme based on actuarial schedules that didn't account for life expectancy to increase as it has over the past 70 years. In the event interest rate increase insolvency will be realized sooner than projected. Oh by the way, it is a federal obligation, look at it as a partially funded liability, currently unsustainable. This is why those in Washington want to revisit and rewrite the retirement age for benefits.

 

[konradv]

Now the question:

Do we screw over the elderly and eliminate social security, thus saving billions?
Or do we allow it do continue to build debt, yet allow the elderly means to live?

Neither option is a good option.

Except it's not an either/or question. It's not a choice between elimination and continued debt, there's always lowering benefits and/or delaying payment. It's already happened. As it is, I'm going to have to wait a year past the traditional 65 for mine.

 

[Lakhota]

No, retard, SS is good until 2033 even with no changes.

Not more of that Ponzi scheme nonsense.

 

[Lakhota]

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

Social Security Is Not A Ponzi Scheme | Research | Media Matters for America

 

[Lakhota]

As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

Trust Fund FAQs

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

Trust Fund FAQs

Explain again why Obama claimed if the debt limit wasn't raised that SS payments would not be made? I mean if the IOU's are so safe and no burden on the Government to pay and all.

 

[Lakhota]

As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

Trust Fund FAQs

Explain again why Obama claimed if the debt limit wasn't raised that SS payments would not be made? I mean if the IOU's are so safe and no burden on the Government to pay and all.

Because the government would be shut down...? BTW, Obama never said "would not be made"...

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

PolitiFact | Barack Obama said Social Security and other federal checks may not go out on Aug. 3 if the debt ceiling is not increased

 

[Lakhota]

I get tired of correcting morons. Stupid people are irritating.