Comments on: Loans: Save You From Money Deficit

By: anna s

anna s — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:09:59 +0000

Unfortunately, when social security was first introduced, it was explained to 'the people' that it would be like having a savings account with $ put aside for them 'when they needed it'. It was also intended to be a quick fix thing for those who were getting older & had started their working lives during the depression. It became permanent simply because the politicians saw that they had more $ to play with. Unfortunately what they felt S.S.I. was for & what they explained it to the people as are way far apart. Sad but the only fix at this point is to get the intent of the program out of the gov't hands & into the hands of the people for investment purposes.
References :

By: okiknowit

okiknowit — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:07:59 +0000

That is the way they put the law together. It is also the reason that it is impossible for social security to go ‘bankrupt.’

In Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legal right to Social Security: Congress can cut or eliminate Social Security benefits at any time regardless of a worker’s contributions. Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who came to the United States in 1918. He paid Social Security taxes from 1936 until he retired in 1955. In 1956 Nestor was deported for being a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. His Social Security checks were stopped in accordance with a 1954 law that stated that deportees would lose their Social Security benefits. Nestor sued the federal government, claiming that he had a right to collect Social Security benefits because he had paid his Social Security taxes.

The Supreme Court disagreed, saying, "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands."

In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not an insurance program: "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

Those decisions mean that Congress can reduce or eliminate Social Security benefits or raise the tax rate at any time.
References :
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/01-13-99.html

By: information_police

information_police — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:05:59 +0000

Actually, we all do business like that. When we put money into a bank it doesn't stay there in a lock box. It gets loaned out to other people so the bank can make a profit and give us interest payments. When we take money out, they give us money that someone else just put in. If the bank went under, we'd be out of luck (if it weren't for the FDIC).
References :

By: mr.richie

mr.richie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:03:40 +0000

If you feel Social Security is a NECESSITY, then don’t you think the government should be held accountable?
The government DOES NOT invest or save the money it collects from all of us who work. THERE IS NO "LOCK BOX!" It goes into the "GENERAL FUND", the pot all expenses come out of. When all the money is gone, they BORROW MORE and call that DEFICIT SPENDING. The money that came in for Social Security is spent on everything and an I.O.U. is put in its place. Be honest, would you loan money to a business or anyone else that does business like that?
You and I, WE THE PEOPLE, had better speak up and let the MORONS in Washington (YOUR Senator and State Representative) know how you feel!
Of course, if you are one of those with your hand out that doesn’t care if the country goes broke, then do nothing and that’s exactly what we will ALL end up with, nothing but a broken society!
Your thoughts???
The government IS NOT a BANK and DOES NOT make any PROFIT on the money it hands out. REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH is NOT a function of government according to the Constitution!