I know what you are saying there too but either way if it was privatized like how bush wanted to do it or keep it the way it is, either way it still is a loose loose proposition because as of individuals as the way Social Security stands and operates we have no rights to Social Security what so ever which is why I favor elimination of the program altogether or privatized and allow individiuals to do as they wish with their money.<quoted text>If bushie boy had privatized SS, just think how 'wonderful' it would have been in 2008...
Social Security’s Sham Guarantee
By Michael D. Tanner
May 29, 2005
How many times during the recent debate over Social Security reform have you heard someone refer to Social Security’s “guaranteed benefit”? The AARP says “Social Security is the guaranteed part of your retirement plan.” Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, touts the system’s “guaranteed retirement benefit.” The liberal activist group ProtectYourCheck.org , headed by former Clinton chief of staff Harold Ickes, is running ads calling Social Security “a guarantee you earned.”
But Social Security benefits are not guaranteed.
They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor(1960) and Helvering v. Davis(1937), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.