If you are unwilling to read the court case you referenced and, instead, insist on quoting from biased sources, debating with you is an exercise in futility and a waste of my time.<quoted text>
I've heard the same from behind public restroom stalls.
One final time...excerpts from the Supreme Court opinion in Nestor:
the right to federal social security benefits is a statutory, conditional right, which the possessor enjoys subject to all the conditions which Congress has attached and may attach.
The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress......No contractual obligation on the part of the Government and no contractual right of a beneficiary could coexist with this reservation of power...."
subject to amendment or repeal as Congress in its wisdom feels will best promote the general welfare"...
"Particularly when we deal with a withholding of a noncontractual benefit under a social welfare program such as this, we must recognize that the Due Process Clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if the statue manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification.
Got it? Social Security benefits are not "property" but they a "noncontractural benefit". Yes, there is no money-back guarantee but Congress cannot arbitrarily amend it at will.
I doubt that any court would agree that the FACT that the government borrowed from the Social Security trust fund and can't pay back the debt is "rational justification" for doing away with Social Security.