I don't think the government can renege on social security or medicare

[Generic Other]

Here's why. When they make promises, treaties, contracts, they are legally binding. When they break those promises they seem to ultimately lose the battle in the courts. For example:

1. They have not been able to break treaties with Native American tribes. Re-negotiate maybe, but not break. Boldt decision in PNW which enforced Indian fishing rights. The treaties were not honored until the courts mandated the US government and the states had a treaty obligation.

2. Back in Clinton years, the Pentagon decided they had never really promised military retirees lifetime medical. It wasn't they said on paper, so they threw the retirees out of the military hospitals. A retired Air Force general sued and the courts upheld the veterans' benefits. They were restored. Retirees once again receive benefits.

Why would Social Security be any different? They took our money contingent on a return in our old age. They can try and re-negotiate the deal, but they cannot pretend there was no deal. All of us have SS cards and paystubs that say differently. The courts clearly would side with the plaintiffs in a class lawsuit over this issue. The precedent has already been established. The government doesn't get to break treaties, contracts, agreements they have made because it is inconvenient for them to honor the deals. As long as we refuse to bargain our rights away, they owe us the money. Screw the teabag party. They are not above the laws of the land.

If the government steals my SS benefits, I will put a lien on their property, send them to collections and get my money back. I will not give a fucking inch on this issue and neither should any of the rest of us. The cow has gone dry. Time to milk someone else.

[msongs]

1. Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio , Florida. governments commit massive crimes with impunity nt

[spooky3]

24. Yes, what the OP describes is exactly what these states are doing.

Employees have earned these benefits based on contracts made and lived up to (by the employees) a long time previously.

[Generic Other]

33. The question is whether they will win

Seems like they can't. If they grow surpluses then the bills will come due. No one is going to eat these debts for the likes of Walker, Scott, Kasich--those reptilian thugs may win a battle or two, but will they win the war?

[NV Whino]

2. You might want to take a closer look at the courts these days

You know, the one that decided the 2000 presidential election, for instance.

[Generic Other]

10. That was a one-time illegal act...didn't they say so themselves?

Not to create a precedent. There is a precedent for the government having to follow through on other sorts of deals made with the people. And court decisions are mostly based on prior decisions.

[Overseas]

55. And then came Citizens United.

From the GOP judicial activists my Democrats did not stop from being nominated and confirmed to our Supreme Court.

[TheKentuckian]

3. Technically true but the "renegotiation" would be the passing of the law that makes the theft happen...

[Generic Other]

7. Renegotiation without returning the monies collected would be theft

and subject to class action lawsuits.

[jberryhill]

18. That's absurd

"Theft" is also defined at law.

Social security is entirely a statutory program. It is not a contract, and it is not a treaty.

[Generic Other]

21. Neither was retiree health benefits for vets...they lost them and won them back

Why? Because the government didn't have the right to change the rules of the game midstream. So said the courts.

[slipslidingaway]

23. Too many people do not even know this theft is occurring ...

which party is telling the American people ... unfortunately neither party is doing so.

When they voted on war supplemental bills that also increased the debt where were all the high profile Dems telling the people that SS money was being used to offset the general budget ... they were nowhere to be found.

:(

[TheKentuckian]

62. I agree it would be theft, I see no avenue of recourse through the courts.

The options are the ballot box and failing that violence.

[unkachuck]

4. "I will not give a fucking inch on this issue..."

....nor should you or anyone else....I hope you're right....these slimy politicians work for us supposedly serving the public interest; they can start by saving harmless Social Security and Medicare....

....why are they trying to balance the federal budget on our backs?....where was their concern when THEY were running up these deficits?....screw the budget deficit; reducing the deficit will only bring new ponzi schemes to jack it up again....the problem is not deficits, the problem is out of control corporations and capitalists....

[tritsofme]

5. Any law passed can be repealed.

One Congress cannot permanently tie the hands of the next.

Congress could completely repeal Medicare and Social Security tomorrow, and the courts would have no recourse. Not in any way comparable to breaking a treaty.

[Generic Other]

6. How come retired vets won back their benefits in court?

The government is not above the law in these kinds of deals.

[tritsofme]

9. I don't recall the incident.

But my guess is that the situations are not comparable.

[Generic Other]

15. Retired vets get free military healthcare for life

There was no document saying it was so, but they had received this care and recruiters used it as an enticement to stay in the whole time. The vets and their dependents get this. The government took it away during the Clinton years. Retirees sued. They won in the courts. Their healthcare benefits were restored.

During the p;eriod when they lost the care, the retirees got shuffled into crappy HMOs. When the government lost the lawsuit, they retored the benefits. They established tricare to pay for retired vets and families healthcare. So the government does lose these battles sometimes. You can't legislate away legal contracts because you don't want to honor them. Eventually, the government would lose.

I don't see how you can say the two aren't comparable. They tried to take promised benefits, they did and they ultimately lost.

[tritsofme]

46. You're going to have to dig out some links or something

I very much doubt the scenarios are comparable.

[Generic Other]

49. jesus h christ on a trailer hitch!

http://mrgrg-ms.org/basics.html

It started in the 1980's when retirees began to lose the medical care they had been promised due to the closing of military bases and military hospitals. This was, of course, completely contrary to the promises that were made to military retirees. These promises were made officially in government printed recruiting brochures and other documents.

http://mrgrg-ms.org/history12-naus-tfl.html

[tritsofme]

52. After I posted I realized that it was already explained to you downthread why the situations

are not comparable.

The administrative action by the Pentagon was shot down, but if Congress had passed those same stipulations, there would be no problems with the courts.

[Generic Other]

59. Congress doesn't have the balls to shoot down the military

and I want to make sure they are equally afraid of the people. Is that so hard to comprehend?

I feel like I have fallen down the compliant little citizen who will eat dreck and call it caviar rabbit hole here.

[jberryhill]

19. Because that was a contract term

The government cannot renege on a contract, but can most certainly change the terms of a statutory program.

[Generic Other]

25. The government argued there was nothing on paper promising healthcare

There is plenty on paper promising social security benefits. We used to get a yearly statement of projected amounts we could expect. They ceased sending them this year. A promise on paper. I'd take it to court.

[customerserviceguy]

68. That yearly statement

is about as meaningless as the ones Bernie Madoff's clients used to get.

[Generic Other]

71. isn't he in jail? guess he needs company, huh?

Promises have meaning to me. Sorry.

[customerserviceguy]

84. You'd have to fill the prisons

with generations of congresscritters who went along with pissing away the money, and that's just not going to happen.

[tritsofme]

45. The government makes the law, they are not above it.

If they changed the law to discontinue the programs, that would be the new law. No less valid than the previous law.

Where is your contract with the federal government guaranteeing you these programs?

[iemitsu]

16. yes it is like breaking a treaty, but worse.

they take monthly installments from me with the stated intent of paying me back (certain amounts) depending on how long i work and how much i make (what they take from me each month).
this is clearly a contract. they can stop taking money from future citizens but they have already taken mine.
it is theft if they don't pay it back.

[Generic Other]

26. BINGO!

Thanks for seeing the truth that is right in front of our noses.

[Blue Meany]

8. At this point it's not an issue of legality or justice, but raw power...

the conservative courts could just rule it legal/constitutional. What I expect to happen, however, and what is already happening is that the value of SS payments is being gradually whittled away by inflation. It may eventually become worthless, and no politician will have to put the neck on the line to do away with it.

[Generic Other]

12. Tell it to the millions of Americans who have NO OTHER retirement

Tell them to starve and die on the streets because the government doesn't honor its commitments.

Entitlement does not mean welfare. It was earned. My FICA contributions over a whole lifetime of working. They are not free for the taking.

[Poboy]

11. I think they wil certainly try if not succeed. The only question is, who, if anyone, will stop them.

[Generic Other]

28. We will Poboy!

And everyone else who stands with us.

[Yo_Mama]

13. SC has already ruled no right to Social Security

So your theory is debunked. See the SSA page about it:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

The history of the constant changes in the Social Security program also make your claim illogical on the face:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM MAY BE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS A FORM OF
SOCIAL INSURANCE, ENACTED PURSUANT TO CONGRESS' POWER TO "SPEND MONEY
IN AID OF THE 'GENERAL WELFARE,'" HELVERING V. DAVIS, SUPRA, AT 640,
WHEREBY PERSONS GAINFULLY EMPLOYED, AND THOSE WHO EMPLOY THEM, ARE
TAXED TO PERMIT THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO THE RETIRED AND DISABLED,
AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. PLAINLY THE EXPECTATION IS THAT MANY MEMBERS OF
THE PRESENT PRODUCTIVE WORK FORCE WILL IN TURN BECOME BENEFICIARIES
RATHER THAN SUPPORTERS OF THE PROGRAM. BUT EACH WORKER'S BENEFITS,
THOUGH FLOWING FROM THE CONTRIBUTIONS HE MADE TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
WHILE ACTIVELY EMPLOYED, ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH HE
WAS CALLED UPON TO SUPPORT THE SYSTEM BY TAXATION. IT IS APPARENT THAT
THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE
SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHT TO
BENEFITS IS BOTTOMED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS.

IT IS HARDLY PROFITABLE TO ENGAGE IN CONCEPTUALIZATIONS REGARDING
"EARNED RIGHTS" AND GRATUITIES." CF. LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
571, 576-577. THE "RIGHT" TO SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS IS IN ONE SENSE
"EARNED," FOR THE ENTIRE SCHEME RESTS ON THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT
THOSE WHO IN THEIR PRODUCTIVE YEARS WERE FUNCTIONING MEMBERS OF THE
ECONOMY MAY JUSTLY CALL UPON THAT ECONOMY, IN THEIR LATER YEARS, FOR
PROTECTION FROM "THE RIGORS OF THE POOR HOUSE AS WELL AS FROM THE
HAUNTING FEAR THAT SUCH A LOT AWAITS THEM WHEN JOURNEY'S END IS NEAR."
HELVERING V. DAVIS, SUPRA, AT 641. BUT THE PRACTICAL EFFECTUATION OF
THAT JUDGMENT HAS OF NECESSITY CALLED FORTH A HIGHLY COMPLEX AND
INTERRELATED STATUTORY STRUCTURE. INTEGRATED TREATMENT OF THE MANIFOLD
SPECIFIC PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM DEMANDS MORE
THAN A GENERALIZATION. THAT PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED TO FUNCTION INTO THE
INDEFINITE FUTURE, AND ITS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS REST ON PREDICTIONS AS
TO EXPECTED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH MUST INEVITABLY PROVE LESS THAN
WHOLLY ACCURATE, AND ON JUDGMENTS AND PREFERENCES AS TO THE PROPER
ALLOCATION OF THE NATION'S RESOURCES WHICH EVOLVING ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
CONDITIONS WILL OF NECESSITY IN SOME DEGREE MODIFY.

[Generic Other]

17. OK then we are owed massive refunds....

Money cannot just be stolen--even by the GOP and courts. Bottom line, we are all minimally owed every cent we put in the system.

[Xithras]

27. Morally, maybe. Legally, no.

Remember, your rights to compensation are defined by the legal system that they control. If they pass a law saying "no refunds", you don't get a refund.

There is no contract between you and the government, merely laws that Congress puts into place, and can revoke at will.

[Generic Other]

29. They have lost when they tried this sort of thing before

Even government bankruptcy won't negate the debt.

And are you saying no collection agencies would be willing to take on the task of recovering the money if need be? If it comes to that, and I must be content with pennies on the dollar, I will send them to fucking collections.

[Xithras]

30. This sort of thing has never been tried before.

And no court has ever overturned a constitutional act of Congress. They can't. They don't have the authority.

The USSC could only overturn a revocation of Social Security and Medicare if the revocation could be shown to violate one of the articles or amendments to the Constitution.

Article Six of the Constitution says that the courts are bound by the laws of the land. Congress writes those laws. Unless they conflict with another part of the Constitution, those laws are binding and courts have to operate within their limits. If Congress revokes Social Security, the courts will not be able to help.

Neither will a collection agency, by the way. You have no contract to show. Only a couple of laws that would no longer be legally binding on anyone.

[Generic Other]

38. I have those yearly statements SS snet me outlining my expected monthly benefits

I have paystubs with deductions. Won't Congress commit political suicide by doing this?

What % of Americans have no other retirement benefits than SS payments? 1 out of 3 to half according to google. We are talking old people working until they die at jobs young people need to live. No safety net. No golden years. Slavery. Due to theft.

Wouldn't it be easier to just euthanize seniors? Senior soylent green. Death panels. Lethal injections. I am not seeing how the Congress plans to implement this any other way. Fema camps? Pulling the plug? Floating off on an iceberg? The current seniors can lead the way. But there are plenty following right behind.

I don't think even the stupidest most ignorant republicans have the balls to do it.

[tritsofme]

47. I don't think anyone considers this scenario likely.

People are just correcting your hypothetical. You are not legally owed a dime.

[Generic Other]

50. Slaves and tools bow with every lash of the whip

I don't choose to grovel. Sorry about your choices.

[tritsofme]

54. I don't speak your code.

But surely you are still not pretending that you are factually correct? It has been explained numerous times.

[Generic Other]

58. Your facts mean nothing in the face of what is just and right

because your facts are based on fraud and theft. But go ahead and capitulate. I choose to fight.

[tritsofme]

64. No point in arguing with someone who is openly uninterested in the truth.

Your reality sounds nicer than the one we live in, but precedent and the constitution is what they is.

[Generic Other]

72. Your truth is Orwellian doublespeak and you are welcome to it

I live by higher truths and they are not subject to change.

[Yo_Mama]

37. Just try collecting - you can't

No court in the US would hear your claim; it has already been decided.

The claim you could file would be under current law only; if the current law is that you don't get benefits, or you don't get all the benefits to which you feel you are entitled (due to repealed law), you have no legal claim.

So you can't collect. No bankruptcy is needed; you have a claim only insofar as the law of the land says you have a claim.

[JVS]

14. The reason they can only re-negotiate is that they need the revenue stream.

SSI is basically a 14% tax on everyone who makes under the cap.

[Generic Other]

20. Not what the deal said it was even if this is what they want it to become

I am 100% sure that if I invest money in a government program I had no choice but sign up for, I am owed a return on the investment especially if I was promised such. I am not being unreasonable or crazy.

The same will be true of healthcare. If we are forced to pay into it, we have every right to expect it to provide for our healthcare needs.

There is no wiggle room in this stuff. Just like student loans. The government holds borrowers accountable forever. We can't renege. They can't either.

[Xithras]

22. Courts cannot overturn acts of Congress on any basis except constitutionality.

1. The Native American treaties are not comparable. Why? Because those treaties were ratified by Congress, and Congress has not formally repealed them, so they are binding law. They have power in our courts simply because they are currently ratified treaties. Congress could, if they wanted, revoke every single treaty they've ever signed TOMORROW, which would revoke the rights of every tribe in the country. No court could overturn that, because Congress alone has the power to ratify and revoke treaties.

2. The retirement benefits thing with the Pentagon was a completely different matter, because you're talking about an administrative matter within the military that didn't really involve Congress one way or the other.

As someone else already pointed out, Congress has the authority to repeal ANY law it has passed. The courts may only intervene if congressional action violates one of the Constitutional amendments, and because NONE of the amendments require any supporting laws, no act of revocation can ever be found unconstitutiuonal.

Congress could revoke Social Security tomorrow. Because this is a democratic nation, the ONLY recourse would be on election day, when we could throw them out and replace them with new leaders who would put it back into place.

[Generic Other]

32. Point taken about the treaties

I'm surprised they didn't do what you say they have a right to do.

The retirement benefits taken and returned by the military does seem relevant though. They made a decision that the courts reversed. Why? Because a promised benefit was taken away. Now it has been restored. I don't see the promised benefit of SS being any different. It was money deducted from workers' pay for specific reasons. A contract. Insurance. You can say it can be repealed, but the money was still taken. There is a debt. That does not go away.

I will still want my 40 acres and a mule as long as I live. I bought it. A class action settlement is the only way the government can get out from under this debt. I am dumbfounded that any of us are going to take this crap from them.

[Xithras]

39. Different situation.

The Pentagon offered the benefits, and the Pentagon tried to revoke them. The courts ruled that the Pentagon had to honor its promises.

The courts have power over the Pentagon. The courts don't have that power over Congress. Congress could pass a law tomorrow revoking all retirement and health benefits for all military veterans. The courts would be powerless to stop them.


The power of Congress to do whatever they want is limited by only three things:

1. The President can veto their legislation, though Congress can override that veto if they have a sufficient majority
   
   
2. The courts can overturn their law if, AND ONLY IF, that law can be shown to violate the articles or amendments of the Constitution.
   
   
3. "We The People" can throw them out on their asses on election day, and install new congresscritters who will restore the law to the condition we want.
   

There is no option four.

[Generic Other]

41. How about the 4th amendment?

Unreasonable seizure.

[TheKentuckian]

60. I believe a President and founder did lay out a fourth option, should option three fail.

I'm about 99.9999999999999999999999999% sure that changing the law would be all the required "renegotiation" but it would be a sore enough screwing to bring and end to the present government, in my opinion.

I would rate it as an unacceptable and predatory raping of the people in a willful act of generational theft that should make all bets off up to and including forceful removal and summary execution.

[Generic Other]

66. ++++++10000000

At least I know I have one comrade in arms! We win or die fighting.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. A government which abandons the social contract deserves option four. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

42. The courts reversed as a point of law

The decision was that under the law, the military didn't have the right to do it. If Congress had changed the law, the retirees wouldn't have gotten their money.

You didn't buy anything by paying FICA taxes. The money went to pay benefits to persons then retired. The money is gone.

Your benefits will be paid by persons then working. The problem is that the worker/retiree ratio is shrinking, so there won't be enough money to pay benefits as promised. Do you expect the next generation to pay FICA of 25%?

There have already been cuts to SS for later retirees. They came in several forms - the change in benefits calculation, the change in the CPI calculation, the increase in full retirement age to 67. There will be a few more changes - but you will get some benefits from the system.

If Social Security worked differently - if the FICA you paid went into bank accounts somewhere with a third party, to be withdrawn and paid to you when you retired - then you would have a claim. But that's not the way it works. The money is a tax collected by the government. There are trust funds, but those trust funds are bookkeeping operations only. Any money not paid out each year to current retirees is given to the federal government to spend as it wishes.

In a sense, most people already got their excess FICA taxes back through lower taxes and more social benefits.

In the end, taxes will be raised to pay for some of the gap, and benefits and other social spending will be cut to cover some more of the gap. No one's talking about ending Social Security.

[Generic Other]

44. Alan Greenspan said it didn't even exist

I love how easy we all are about accepting slavery, penury, theft, criminal fascism by our corporate state.

hell. Why fight it. Just accept that you work for them. Why bother to even give us any pay? Slaves don't get paid. They just work themselves to an early grave.

The BS they feed us to defend their theft and fraud is still dreck and smells to high heaven.

[madokie]

31. Thats pretty much how I see it too.

[Kablooie]

34. The problem is that Republicans are currently beyond the law.

They will continue to break laws with impunity because they know, from recent history, that no Republican will be prosecuted successfully.
You can do nothing about it. They are imune.

[WinkyDink]

35. Charmingly naive!

[Generic Other]

40. I live in a simple world where my handshake is binding

I keep my word. I treat people as I would wish to be treated. To be called "charmingly naive" for having the values of my forefathers and foremothers who made this country great seems a compliment to me.

[WinkyDink]

43. I'm a straight-shooter, myself. But the courts no longer are. Bush v. Gore put the kibosh on .

judicial honor.

[Better Believe It]

36. They can and will if we let them.

[littlewolf]

48. actually the SC has ruled that the gov't

deosn't have to give you SS benifits ....

[Generic Other]

51. then I would argue they are violating the 4th amendment

unreasonable seizure of my property with promises they don't intend to keep. I think the US Constitution might be on my side here.

[OwnedByFerrets]

53. Crimes commited by the powerful are unpunished...just look at Monkeyboy for proof

[Generic Other]

56. We need strategies to fight back

Mostly all I see on this thread is people willing to cave. What happened to the fighters at DU?

Where have all the liberals gone? Long time passing...where have all the liberals gone long time ago...where have all the liberals gone...no fight left in them every one...when will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?

[former9thward]

57. They changed the "deal" in 1983 and got away with it.

They raised the retirement age from 65 to 67 that year. In fact President Obama praised that fact in his recent deficit speech where he said Reagan and Tip O'Neil "saved" social security.

[Generic Other]

63. And we slaves of the corporate state said thank you massa, thank you

for leaving ujs the crumbs from the banquet table.

Proving there is nothing we will fight for except the TV remote so we don't miss AMERICAN IDOL? People who won't fight for their rights will lose them all--one by one.

Even slaves broke the damn hoes when they were sent out in the fields. They spit in the master's water. They put cursed gris gris balls under the master's pillows.

I am ashamed to be affiliated with many of my weak kneed fellow Americans. The people of Wisconsin have shown us that those who fight the power can win. I want to be like them, not like the naysayers and passive folks who accept any bad check they are handed.

[Zax2me]

61. They can do anything they want - we gave them the power

It has grown beyond our control.
We allowed and voted for them to grow over the years.
Grow is size, power and scope over our lives.
They control us.

[Generic Other]

73. How then do we take it back?

Please give me a plan that does not include old people eating catfood while Snidely Whiplash robs them of their rightful benefits.

[customerserviceguy]

65. Y'know that money that was taken out of your paychecks

for Social Security and Medicare taxes? Well, it's just as gone as the income taxes used to fight meaningless wars is. It's been spent, and it's just not there anymore.

I know you think you 'have' something out there, but it's just a miniscule share of a bunch of IOU's (Bernie Sander's description of it, as well as mine) that the government will ultimately pay off with hyperinflated currency from the printing presses that won't be worth a damn.

Best to pile up as much as you can for the future, if you plan to live there.

[Generic Other]

69. And we should simply lie down and accept it?

We should just accept a damn government that does nothing for us? That hands us an IOU that turns out to be a bad check? And that makes them a government worth supporting?

If they renege on the social contract, they need to be replaced by a government that is responsive to our needs. They are pushing Americans to the edge. Once they reach the point of no return, they will cease to exist.

All the flag lapels and faux patriotic blather notwithstanding, the government will fall like the Soviet Union.

Class warfare. And there are more of us than them. And we have nothing much left to lose. Except the chains of the corporate state.

[customerserviceguy]

85. Ok, so we get a whole new Congress

composed nearly 100% of people who were not part of the original problem. Where do they get the trillions needed to put real money back into Social Security and Medicare?

The printing press looks like it will be the ultimate solution. Inflation always favors debtors over savers, and hyperinflation will be the only thing that will get the Federal government, no matter who is nominally in charge of it, out of this hole. Yes, there's the old tax-the-rich and stop-the-wars thing, but that's not going to produce the results needed to fix this.

[Generic Other]

87. a Herculean task to clean out the stables of the shit

but it's a start. I guess this is where my focus lies. Bring 'em all down.

[customerserviceguy]

101. While that goal is laudable

although likely unattainable, still, my question persists: Where does this new Congress get the means to fix the problem? Do they cut Social Security (even if it's just means testing), do they raise FICA taxes and kick the problem down the road for another decade or two, or do they let the Fed print money to keep the Social Security System nominally afloat, like a Zimbabwean civil service agency?

The latter choice destroys the savings of millions who have been prudent enough to try to save something because they knew SS was going broke, the first choice breaks the 'contract' that you say should be held dear.

[Generic Other]

113. I wish I could take the same cavalier attitude toward my personal debts

I just pay and try to keep my head above water. I support my aging mother as well. My father won two bronze stars in WW2. My mother would be homeless based on the paltry widow's benefits she receives. While you and yours were prudently saving, my father stormed the beaches at Normandy, huddled in a foxhole in Belgium (the Battle of the Bulge), liberated France, then marched into Berlin. He froze his ass off in Korea, then ended his time serving in the Vietnam war. My mother gets $200. a month military survivor benefits. Her SS money (and my help) keeps her alive. She is not the only one in this position. When you rob poor people to help rich people, remember these are the ones you are swindling. Cheney had other priorities than serving his country. The GOP Congress is full of draft dodging warmongers and scum who rob widow women for their own benefit.

I hope I drop dead before I ever see the day I accept their notion of honor, morality or patriotism. A flag in your lapel does not make you a good American. Siding with these evil men and women for even one second makes you like them. At least in my eyes.

[Zanzoobar]

67. LOL! What the gummit giveth, the gummit can take away.

Sorry for the reality bomb.

Not a single thing is stable. Nothing.

[Generic Other]

70. including the government

which only governs by the consent of the people. I withdraw my consent. How about you?

[Zanzoobar]

75. Your consent? Uhhh shurrrr. Like, vote and all that stuff.

Dig it, Daddy. Cast your ballot.

[Generic Other]

77. My ballot isn't worth the paper it is printed on

I am not sure voting makes any difference. I would like to think I am wrong. BTW, I am not your daddy. Yo mama maybe.

[Zanzoobar]

79. You think that we are goverened by the consent of the people...

...but your vote doesn't matter?

You need a sarcasm thingamajig.

[Generic Other]

81. I think we are governed by consent of people but many of my fellow citizens are ZOMBIES

who are uninformed voters or don't vote at all, who do what they are told and believe without ever questioning the status quo. They refuse to dig in their heels and fight for what is right because it requires effort. They accept whatever crap they are handed. And they are grateful for any crumb.

I don't want to be one of them. I will go down fighting. You really think I am being sarcastic?

[bobbolink]

74. It can and it will. Denial won't change that.

[Generic Other]

76. I don't see you ever giving up the fight! I hear you waging the war every day!

I don't want to support a government as evil and corrupt as this one has become. I don't think you do either. What do we do to reclaim our rights?

I am tired of hearing there is nothing we can do.

[bobbolink]

92. "What do we do?" What is necessary is exactly what we don't want to do.

The easy (and most ineffective) thing we do is to keep blaming it all on the RW.

But the real reason they are running away with this is because we have bought the whole 'Murkin trip hook, line and sinker. When it comes to Rugged Individualism, we are the champs.

Another DUer just wrote about something that so encapsulizes this. She said that it shouldn't come as any surprise to the middleclass that they are now endangered. The assault on poor people has been gong strong now for decades, but the middleclass didn't think that was a problem. As this DUer reminded people, many of us tried to warn you when Clinton decimated welfare (and didn't even care enough about the people he hurt to track them and find out how many became homeless, how many died), the middleclass was next.

Well, now here it is. "First they came for the poor, but I wasn't poor, so I turned my back."

We don't know how to truly come together, especially across lines of differentness. The RW has very cleverly USED that inability to their advantage. They counted on it. And they won.

The other day a caller to the Thom Hartmann show recommended a book (which I don't remember because I was driving and couldn't write it down), saying that DISCONNECTION is the biggest obstacle we have to righting the wrongs and bringing this country back to where we need to be.

I can vouch for that. People don't return calls/emails, they don't know how to listen, just like the RW, they confuse SOCIETAL issues for PERSONAL issue, thereby turning people off.

Until we look at ourselves and our very real problems with disconnection, not only will things not change for the better... they will continue to worsen.

[BanzaiBonnie]

94. Exactly!

The issue is one of trust. Broken trust causes us to disconnect. To see another human as an enemy. If we trust someone enough to take the time to connect and something happens to hurt us, it can make us more cautious next time.

But, I'm a Pollyanna and I believe that it's always worth it to connect with others. Now, that doesn't mean I don't go through times when I feel so depressed and hopeless that I want to stay in bed with the covers over my head. I allow myself to go through that experience and offer myself compassion at those times. I let myself feel what I'm feeling and go through the grieving over all the pain and suffering I see. Then I recognize that if I let that go too far, I'll be suffering the physiological effects of depression. So I turn my focus to the people that are actively making a difference in their lives and the lives of others.

I have gained so much from working with the nonviolent communication training. It gives me such a clear picture of how damaged I am by the story I was taught, carried, and still carry, to some extent. And it gives me a way forward. We all have the same needs and we are all much more alike than we are different. It's about showing someone who you are and listening to their story and sharing your life story that our lives are enriched and the possibility of joy fulfilled.

I'm changing and reinforcing the story within myself that we were built to be cooperative, compassionate, kind, and generous. But that can only happen after we've been compassionate, kind and generous with ourselves.



An old Grandfather said to his grandson, who came to him with anger at a friend who had done him an injustice, "Let me tell you a story.

I too, at times, have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do.

But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings many times." He continued, "It is as if there are two wolves inside me. One is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him, and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way.

But the other wolf, ah! He is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper. He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger,for his anger will change nothing.

Sometimes, it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit."

The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which one wins, Grandfather?"

The Grandfather smiled and quietly said, "The one I feed."


As the grandfather said, which one wins, will all depend on which wolf we feed.

[Generic Other]

109. wise words

I feed the angry one way too much.

[grahamhgreen]

78. Worth the fight. A class action brought by - EVERYONE!

[suffragette]

80. I like the way you think

and I will stand with you and fight for this.

[hansberrym]

82. Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s

Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power


Your free will is no longer yours! So why are you worried about getting only 78 cents on the dollar on your SS investment?

[Generic Other]

83. 78 cents on the dollar? I doubt they plan to be that generous

Every day they convince more of us that we aren't entitled to live and prosper in this country. They take our dollar and leave us singing "Brother can you spare a dime."

I am not ready to give in without a fight.

[littlewolf]

86. here is the SCOTUS on SS

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/nestor.html

snip
Background to the Case:
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

snip


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. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

snip

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

[Generic Other]

88. throughout the country's history some people suppose that they are entitled to govern

They are not. No matter what they think. Their entitlement to make laws, break laws is by consent of the rest of us. When we all get mad and tired enough, even the 3 branches of government fall. Even the military falls.

The Soviet Union's demise is proof that NO government is invincible. Tyranny will fail because it always goes too far and the backlash is brutal and far reaching. The lessons of history are clear.

One day, we will be Egypt. In our lifetimes? Undoubtedly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. You are arguing for the privatisation of social security

You are saying that the money one person pays into social security should belong to that person, and cannot be redistributed to anyone else.

[littlewolf]

93. All I did was point out what SCOTUS said about

ones rights about collecting SS .... the way I understand it ... what they are saying is
just because you paid into .... you do not have the right to benefits .. yours or anyone else's
now I am NOT a lawyer .... if someone understands this differently please show me ....
I am NOT counting on collecting SS ..... it is possible they will find someway to
keep from paying me my SS ....

edited for clarity

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. I agree with you

It's Generic Other who has said, in this thread, that everyone must be entitled to at least the amount they'd paid in Social Security taxes - ie that they 'own' the money they put in. You and I, and the Supreme Court, see Social Security as a government program, I think.

[MedleyMisty]

104. I'm hoping soon

Because hell if I want to waste more of my life than I have to living under totalitarian fascism.

[Generic Other]

106. So you condone theft and the government believes in redistribution of income?

How socialist they are when it's my money they spend! and how capitalist they become where profits are concerned. They will not have it both ways forever.

How do you plan to deal with the oldsters starving in the streets? Laugh at them for being fools. Share your cat food?

What goes around comes around.

I don't need the money to retire. But it is my money. And those who rob me will suffer repercussions.

[newportdadde]

89. They will just move the goal posts and privatize.. they need cash for the market.

I'm 34 so I'm already 67 for full benefits. My kids will be what 70 by the time they are done.. hell I might be 70 since I'm under 55. Of course the argument will be made that we live longer which is a bit of joke with most gains being made by less childhood deaths. Even if we do live longer.. a year in your 60s is not a year in your 20s, not the same thing.

The next argument will be office jobs are easy and not hard on the body. Of course not everyone has an office job. My father didn't, had a job with a lot of lifting, he barely made it to 60 and retired(2 hernia operations in 3 years) and then ran on fumes till he could draw early SS at 62. He is 63 now and looks like he is 75.

Now I myself work an office job and let me tell you by the time I've 70 if I'm still at a PC I'll only have claws left for hands. Not to mention my back.. jesus.. a sign of things I get to look forward to. That and it will only get harder and harder to keep a job or find one as it does for everyone who is looking right now in their 50s.

But you are right they won't destroy.. but they will get that money. Eventually they will get it, they need that cash to add to the pot, same for teacher retirements and government worker pensions etc... one way or another they will get it.

[drpepper67]

91. Veterans benefits were not restored.

You said in your original post that veterans medical benefits were restored.

That's not true.

Retired military still get kicked off Tricare Prime at age 65.

"Tricare for life" is just a Medicare supplement. They still have to pay for part B Medicare, like everyone else. Military retirees are not getting free government health care they were promised, trust me.

Sure, it's better than getting nothing. But it is in no way what was supposedly promised, not by a long shot.

[Generic Other]

108. This is true but since it still is free I didn't really make the distinction

but you are right. A sleight of hand was pulled on the military. I am impressed that they won back most of the benefits. How do SS folks do the same?

#1 we stop accepting crap and being defeatists as though their shit plans are gonna fly. We shoot them down every time they open their fat yaps. We scream to high heaven.

As for the young who don't want to pay my SS, fine. I will work 40 years at my job with its excellent salary and benefits. You stay at McDonald's. You win all around. No worries about paying my retirement. No worries about your own either. I am sure McD's benefit package is all that. Maybe it is a better deal to see me retire and hand my job to a younger worker who would then have the means to afford to pay my SS. Do the math. I can retire at a reasonable age or keep a younger worker out of a job for another twenty years.

Who wins?

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. No. We have no legal recourse if they change the system such that they never have to repay.

The operative word is legal.

When they do that, they've thrown out the social contract. I obey the law because I respect that contract in a moral sense. If they no longer do, then why should I?

[ItNerd4life]

97. Democrats have reneged on SS so many times, it's not even funny.

Under Clinton SS income could be taxed, it was never taxed before no matter what.
There have been numerous changes over the years to SS, mostly by Democrats.

The rules have to change and evolve as society changes and evolves.

When SS first started the average life expectancy was much < 65 years old. Now it's 72+ years old, to keep with the original agreement the SS age would now be 75 years old.

[Generic Other]

112. When did the boomers start paying extra to keep the fund solvent?

Under Ford was it? A lot of us paid out more than we expect to get back. So fraud and theft is an American value now. Nice to know that's the best we will do for our aging parents and grandparents.

[littlewolf]

98. there is a way to fix SS .... require congress to be on it ....

do away with congresses retirement system ... require they be on the same system
that we are on ... and I bet they get it fully funded and in working order in no time
I do not plan on holding my breath for EITHER party to do that ...

[jtown1123]

100. They are on SS. They have pensions too but they still pay into SS.

[madinmaryland]

102. Sorry, but do really think the Roberts court will protect your SS benefits??

:rofl:

[Generic Other]

114. So I should roll on the ground laughing my head off like you do?

No thanks.

[SoulSearcher]

103. I wish you well on that

but I don't think we really have a say anymore.

[Generic Other]

110. Hell I will always have something to say

just no power! But thanks for the kind wishes. :)

[Imagevision]

105. If they do away with SS. I do hope they would return all the cash they've taken so far...

[Egalitariat]

107. A treaty is a contract that both sides are obligated to uphold. FICA is a tax based on a law, not a

contract (even if we like to call it the "social contract", it's not a contract enforcable for breach). Every Congress/Presidency has the right to change laws, make new ones, or abolish them.

[Generic Other]

111. Conversely every citizen has a right to revolt against said government

but most Americans don't seem to care enough to take the actions necessary. We all cheered for Wisconsinites, but in the end we are no better than Arizonans.

[Egalitariat]

115. Americans have the right to peacably assemble. I don't know how you define "revolt", but we don't

have the right to revolt. Not the way I define revolt, anyways.

The same Constitution that reserved individual rights for the people gave the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch of the federal government the right to do a whole bunch.

[Generic Other]

116. MLK revolted...Wisconsin unions revolted...hippies revolted...

Refusing to cooperate is revolutionary in a society of compliant sheep.

[Egalitariat]

117. We just define "revolt" differently, but I see what you're saying. I would say that...

George Washington revolted and that French peasants revolted.

[WinkyDink]

118. Allow me to quote the Declaration of Independence (yes, I KNOW: Not the Constitution):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,<72> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

[Generic Other]

119. I do believe this to be true

It is the more revolutionary document Jefferson wrote.