SSI or SSDI are not entitlements they are welfare programs:
Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.
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.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “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.”
In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program nor entitlement program or whatever magic words policians want to use to bamboozle the voters. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security “benefits” are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.
SSI or SSDI are not entitlements they are welfare programs:
Quite true.. but some would say welfare is an entitlement..
Which IS the question... What is a citizen entitled to?..
This has never been fleshed out.. little wonder the open door thats been given to it..
The commies walked right in sat down and “boguarded” the conversation..
Course they renamed themselves with several handels to confuse..
And it did when “WE” sent conservatives to Wash. that didnt even know what conservative meant..
So how on earth could they fight for something they didnt know what “WAS”..
Course it is much worse today.. Boehner and Mac whats his name are clueless..
Welfare always was a political disease, but now it seems to be terminal..
Boehner and Mac are doing “Weekend at Bernies” with Uncle Sam.. and the cigar has gone out.. the ball cap is askew..
I don’t doubt that what you state is true from a government/legal viewpoint. However, I can say without any doubt also that as a young lad getting his SS card at age 12 in 1938 that I/we were under the belief that SS payments were to be for the benefit at our old age retirement. That retirement SS income was geared to payments just to give us the security of some old age income.Based on your info I believe more than ever that SS was a government scheme/scam from courts to Congress to President. I have in my mind memories of Roosevelt extolling SS a personal savings account.