Posted on 11/06/2013 5:53:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Last week's column, "Is There a Way Out?", generated quite a few responses, some a bit angry. Some people were offended by my reference to Social Security and Medicare as entitlements or handouts. They said that they worked for 45 years and paid into Social Security and Medicare and how dare I refer to the money they now receive as an entitlement. These people have been duped by Congress and shouldn't be held totally accountable for such a belief. Let's examine the plethora of congressional Social Security lies. I'll leave the Medicare lies for another column.
The Social Security pamphlet of 1936 read, "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right" (http://tinyurl.com/maskyul). Therefore, Americans have been led to believe that Social Security is like a retirement account and money placed in it is their property. The fact of the matter belies that belief.
A year after the Social Security Act's passage, it was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Helvering v. Davis. The court held that Social Security is not an insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both 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 a 1960 case, Flemming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court held, "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."
Decades after Americans had been duped into thinking that the money taken from them was theirs, the Social Security Administration belatedly -- and very quietly -- tried to clean up its history of deception. Its website explains, "Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right." It adds: "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. ... Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law" (http://tinyurl.com/49p8fl2). The Social Security Administration failed to mention that it was the SSA itself, along with Congress, that created the lie that "the checks will come to you as a right."
Here's my question to those who protest that their Social Security checks are not an entitlement or handouts: Seeing as Congress has not "set up a Social Security account for you" containing your Social Security and Medicare "contributions," where does the money you receive come from? I promise you it's neither Santa Claus nor the tooth fairy. The only way Congress can send checks to Social Security and Medicare recipients is to take the earnings of a person currently in the workforce. The way Congress conceals its Ponzi scheme is to dupe Social Security and Medicare recipients into thinking that it's their money that is put away and invested. Therefore, Social Security recipients want their monthly check and are oblivious about who has to pay and the pending economic calamity that awaits future generations because of the federal government's $100 trillion-plus unfunded liability, of which Social Security and Medicare are the major parts.
Pointing to the congressional lies and future economic chaos is not the same as calling for a cessation of checks going out to recipients. Instead, it's a call for the recognition that we've made a mistake that needs to be corrected while there's time to avoid a calamity. It's also a call for us to recognize that we all share in the blame and hence the burden to make it right. Politicians have little interest in doing something about an economic calamity that will happen in 2030 or 2040; they only care about the next election. Older Americans, who own most of the political clout, must lead the fight to get Congress to do something about entitlement programs. Of course, the alternative is continued belief in the Social Security and Medicare myth and the heck with future generations.
That is a philosophical;l belief.
The real lie is the trust funds,
Medicare's been running deficits (requiring the government borrowing $$$) since GWB yet we are told by both parties that it is fully self funded for another 5 to 10 years.
That allows politicians to continue to tell those getting it today and those turning >65 the next bunch of years that they won the medicare lottery, its only those of us paying in now under ~ 55 or so that they are out of luck (GOP says this part).
In Dems case they claim just raising taxes on rich will fix it 10 years from now.
The are NO Federal Government Trust Funds, because the Federal Government goes broke every year.
I guess it is naive to suggest that our government use its un-equalled computer “skills” to:
(1) retrieve the amounts each of us has paid into Social Security over the years
(2) use that data to populate a table that shows the “balances” in our imaginary “lock-boxes”, as each SSA “deposit” we make increases those imaginary balances.
(3) accrue earnings on the imaginary balances in each imaginary lock-box at the T-bill rate — and then add that imaginary interest to our imaginary balances.
(4) deduct any Social Security payments paid to us from the imaginary balances in our imaginary “lock-boxes”.
(5) continue reporting deductions for payments made to us, even after our imaginary lock-box balances go to zero. Our lock-box balances would then be reported as “negative”.
Such reports would allow each of us to know — mathematically — whether the payments we actually receive represent a repayment of “our” own money — or not.
Dr. Williams is old enough to collect an S.S. check without limitations on his earnings. Does he collect one?
Just a simple question, I’m not doubting his sincerity or devotion to conservatism, nor am I casting aspersions on his character.
LOL
Another example
Social Security was indeed, presented to, and is perceived by, the American public, as a contract with the US Government.
Of course, it is not a contract, it is actually a Congressional determined entitlement, supported by a Congressional authorized tax, and said funds are fraudulently managed by Executive fiat, while numerous Constitutionally sworn officers refuse to uphold their oaths.
“The only way Congress can send checks to Social Security and Medicare recipients is to take the earnings of a person currently in the workforce.”
This is not dissimilar to how all insurances work... Seems that it is the same for life or health insurance.
For that matter, the acronym FICA, stands for “Federal Insurance Contributions Act”
Why shouldn’t he. He was born in 1936 and if he paid in it, which I am sure he did.
Blame the liberals, they stole the funds
There was a report the other day on Fox News that the ss administration send millions of checks to people who have already died
Social Security and Medicare as entitlements or handouts.
Try pointing this out to many FReepers, and they indignantly claim it’s their money. It’s not.
BTTT!
This is a non sequitur.
On the other hand, he says that protestors of his audience deny that Social Security is not an entitlement or a handout, thus also a non sequitur.
Please tell me what the He__ is going on here? What is the reasoning in this thesis?
You are confused here. By definition, an entitlement is a right, a unilateral agreement in which the amount received is contractually owed.
Would you please reformulate your thesis?
That is a plan in which funds taken from those paid for their work are given to those no longer productive for their subsistence. The idea is that those ho once supplied funds during their time of productivity will later be reimbursed for those funds in their non-productive phase.
Of course, for some, the outcome will be unfair and negative, especially if they die and have no qualifying dependents. For others the outcome will be grossly unfair and positive, if they live far beyond their actuarially expected life termination. Also, the inequalities will be magnified by rampant inflation demanded by the working segment, of which the recipients will take the biggest hit.
Sorry, you be wrong.
Your are attempting to define entitlement rather than the Congressional determined entitlement I specified, and, in law, Congress has the authority and power to define the words they use to write law.
Congress has specifically reserved and exercised the power to amend the Social Security benefit and recipients as they see fit, and has empowered an appointed bureaucracy to exercise the same function by their permission.
Also since you want to be picky over words rather than accurate over fact, please define a "unilateral" "agreement".
I guess you don't like the definitions given by Merriam-Webster (see my reply #16, and click on "entitlement" and "handout" to compare the differences) where no definition peculiar to Congress and contrary to the common universal definition of "entitlement" is listed.
I made no attempt to redefine it, only cited the accepted meaning. Let me know when Congress rewrites the language.
As to a unilateral agreement, one company I worked for stated a formula for severance pay based on salary at time of termination and length of service. It was printed in the Human Resources handbook given to each new salaried employee. That published formula applied to each and every employee without exception and was not subject to negotiation. By agreeing to enter service with the company, the employee implicitly agreed with this unilaterally offered benefit, and thus became a participant in the agreement. Is that clear?
There is no pickyness to using that term for participation in Social Security, which is a non-negotiable condition of employment. FICA taxes will be taken from your income, and IRS will not consult with you as to the formula by which the amount is calculated.
What point do you wish to make?
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.