Social Security NOT guaranteed

Next time you hear liberals argue that SS is just fine and needs to be left alone, since it's a guarantee to our seniors that we can't endanger on some "stock market scheme", please educate them on Flemming v. Nestor, 1960. This link has not just the legalese behind the ruling, but the ramifications.

Here are a couple of quotes from the ruling that should get your attention:

"Congress included in the original act, and has since retained a claim expressly reserving to it the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the act".

In other words, benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity or gesture of charity. Thus, the government can kill the program at any time, much less reduce benefits!

Justice Black dissented, noting the hypocrisy that the government renegging on SS is somehow more acceptable than the private sector:

"I cannot believe that any private insurance in America would be permitted to repudiate it's matured contracts with its policy-holders who have regularly paid all the premiums in reliance upon the good faith of the company."

Yet Ted Kennedy and his ilk tell us that Americans are better off with the current system (which isn't guaranteed, to speak nothing of anemic returns) than a system where they can pass on earnings (that's TRUE earnings!) to their children.